Ballots to remain uncounted in MI and Stein blocked in Philly. Guest: Election integrity, law expert Paul Lehto says this proves 'only option is to get it right on Election Night'. Also: Trump taps climate denier, fossil-fuel tool for EPA...

Formerly-gagged FBI translator/whistleblower invites Congresswoman to 'pursue facts' of the case, use her position as member of House Intel Committee to find the truth about allegations of bribery, blackmail, nuclear espionage

As she had promised on Tuesday night, former FBI translator turned whistleblower Sibel Edmonds has responded to a parting shot taken at her by Rep. Jan Schakowsky's office, concerning Edmonds' allegations that she overheard details of a blackmail scheme directly involving the 9th-district Illinois' 9th-District U.S. Congresswoman, while working on the FBI counterintelligence division's investigation into the Turkish lobby following the 9/11 attacks.

She has now issued a formal letter to the Congresswoman, asking her to join in her "Pursuit of the Facts," in her role as a member of the U.S. Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. The letter is posted in full below.

Edmonds, twice-gagged by the Bush Administration's unprecedented use of the so-called "State Secrets Privilege," was recently able to begin disclosing information about a massive bribery, blackmail, and espionage scandal involving current and former government officials and the sale of nuclear weapons technology to the black market, when she was deposed in an Ohio Elections Commission case on August 8, 2009. The Obama Adminstration's Dept. of Justice chose not to reinvoke the "State Secrets Privilege," finally paving the way for Edmonds' sworn deposition. The transcript and video of the complete, remarkable deposition can be seen here.

As part of that deposition, Edmonds detailed treasonous crimes she says were carried out by a number of current and former members of Congress, as discovered via the wiretaps of the Turkish targets. Those named by Edmonds included Dennis Hastert (R-IL), Bob Livingston (R-LA), Dan Burton (R-IN), Roy Blunt (R-MO), Stephen Solarz (D-NY), Tom Lantos (D-CA, deceased).

Another married, but allegedly bisexual, Democratic member of Congress was unnamed at the time, but described as having participated in a lesbian sexual affair with a woman who was, unbeknownst to the Congresswoman, a Turkish agent. The tryst, according to Edmonds, was video-taped by the Turks for possible use in a blackmail scheme, though Edmonds left the FBI before learning whether or not the Congresswoman was ever blackmailed.

Following the publication of the story, The BRAD BLOG received a formal response to the allegations from Schakowsky's office. The Congresswoman's spokesperson vehemently denied them all on her behalf, pointed to seemingly contradictory facts in Edmonds' claims in order to undermine them, and disparaged her as a fantasist and conspiracy theorist. The charges, her spokeswoman Trevor Kincaid wrote, were "cut from the same cloth as the stories by 'birthers' that President Obama is not an American citizen."

Edmonds quickly rebutted the response in kind, presenting additional details, noting that she has been "reporting intercepted communication of targeted operatives; more or less verbatim," asking a number of pointed direct questions to the Congresswoman, and challenging her to a joint polygraph exam.

Rather than responding to those questions, Schakowsky's office issued another short formal statement, describing Edmonds' allegations as "fairytales," "the stuff of science-fiction and absurd conspiracy theory; absent of any factual basis. Period."

Instead of responding immediately in return late on Tuesday night, Edmonds told The BRAD BLOG that she would issue a formal response later.

Edmonds' new, formal response to Schakowsky --- who currently serves as Chair of the U.S. House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence's Subcommittee on Investigation and Oversight --- follows in full below, and includes an invitation from the former FBI translator and founder of the National Security Whistleblower Coalition (NWSBC) to the Congresswoman to join her in investigating the matter...

In Pursuit of the FactsInviting Ms. Schakowsky to Join...

Dear Congresswoman Schakowsky:

It is an age-old tactic, when one cannot refute statements with facts, to attempt to discredit the witness. Rather than exchanging accusations, let me just go on record with facts and detailed citations.

When I became aware of incriminating evidence against high-level U.S. officials---elected and appointed---I filed under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and fought for five years in court. I bore tremendous cost, financially and emotionally, to make this data public. Here is the court case identification: C.A. No. 1:02CV01294 (ESH).

Few citizens have gone this far in a FOIA case to make covered-up information available to the public. No one gains financially from fighting this kind of thing in court, and I am no exception. You have called me a fantasist, but would a fabricator pay as dearly as I did to have her claims investigated?

I fought another court case to expose government criminality through key witnesses and documents. As in the FOIA case, I bore tremendous costs and was again blocked by the invocation of the State Secrets Privilege and National Security. The court case identification is Civ.No.1:02CV01448(JR)).

No other citizen has twice had the State Secrets Privilege invoked. But why would the government, with the support of congressional representatives, go to such lengths to quash, gag, and classify the files and operations in question if they were "fantasy, lies, and nonexistent" as you say?

I complied with the whistleblowing rule and took my case to the Office of the Inspector General and provided all of the information they allowed me to. They interviewed dozens of witnesses and reviewed hundreds of pages of documents in their investigation of my credibility and the validity of my case. Here is the link to their confirmation that I and my case have merit: DOJ-IG Report. Here is the redacted report that shows how our government censored more than 90% of this report to the public: Redacted DOJ-IG Report. Very few national security whistleblowers have been granted this level of validation and vindication. The Justice Department's own Office of the Inspector General disagrees with your characterization of me and my case.

Several senior members of Congress---from both sides of the aisle--have also investigated and publicly confirmed my credibility and the grave nature of my disclosures. This is what Senator Leahy had to say: Leahy Statement. This is what Congresswoman Maloney said: Rep. Maloney Statement. Here are the assessments of Senator Lautenberg--Sen. Lautenberg Statement---and Senator Grassley--Sen. Grassley Statement. By attacking my credibility, you are also attacking your colleagues, including many on your side of the aisle. Are you accusing these senators and representatives of being fantasists too?

You have been described as a "true blue" civil libertarian, so it will surely interest you to know that the ACLU has declared me "the most gagged" person in the history of this great nation. Are you also attacking the ACLU and calling their characterization of this case a fantasy?

I have testified under oath, and my public biography will provide you with information about my educational background, financial background, and family life. I am fully aware of the consequences of perjury, and as you can see, I would have a lot to lose were that the case. I am sure you are familiar with my sworn testimony, but you can review it here. I've done more than my share through the courts, IG offices, Congress, and media. I don't have your power. You sit on the House Intelligence Committee, and you are one of the members of the majority party in Congress.

Here is what you can do: Call for an investigation and a hearing before your committee on this long covered-up case. Subpoena the files and call the witnesses. Bring in retired Special Agent Gilbert Graham and have him testify on the official report and complaint he filed with the DOJ inspector general in 2002 regarding the FBI counterespionage investigations involving Turkey and Israel in which targeted US representatives were illegally wiretapped. This is not fiction. Here is the official and signed public version: SA Gilbert Graham Report.

Also bring in former FBI Counterintelligence Operations Manager & Espionage Investigator John M. Cole and have him testify under oath regarding espionage cases involving State Department officials, Pentagon officials, and Congressional members. Here is a preview of some of the information disclosed and confirmed by Agent Cole: Interview and Radio Interview.

Also bring in the sworn testimonies of current FBI special agents in the Chicago and DC field offices who dutifully and patriotically led the counterintelligence operations on Turkey and corrupt US officials, only to see their investigations blocked and covered-up. Their names are public.

Order the Justice Department to release the two main Counterintelligence Operations Files on Turkey and "US persons of interest"---one from FBI Chicago Field Office-1996-2002, the other from FBI DC Field Office-1996-2001. These will help bring out the facts regarding your story too. I have documentation supporting the existence of these files.

Recall that I did not accuse you of any criminal or espionage-related activity.

The last time I saw a similar attack on my credibility was when Dennis Hastert issued a non-denial denial to information contained in a previous magazine article. He later gave up his seat, registered himself (under FARA) as an agent for the government of Turkey, and went on to collect $35,000 per month as a foreign agent. I certainly hope you are not planning to follow his footsteps by giving up your seat and officially registering with a foreign government. It would be far better if you used your position to bring out the facts. I will be delighted to assist you.

Sibel Edmonds

The BRAD BLOG had asked Kincaid, Schakowsky's Communication Director, for a comment on whether Schakowsky might use her position as Chair of the Subcommittee on Intelligence Oversight and Investigation to hold hearings on the Edmonds' allegations. He said he hadn't discussed the matter with the Congresswoman at the time, and wasn't certain whether her committee would have proper jurisdiction for this matter or not.

We will forward Edmonds' letter to Schakowsky's office, with an invitation to reply in full if they choose to do so. We will, of course, update this item, as well as run their complete response if they decide to issue one.

UPDATE 9/23/09, 1:52pm PT: Trevor Kincaid, Communications Director for Rep. Schakowsky, has responded today to The BRAD BLOG, in reply to the above letter from Edmonds, as follows:

It is extraordinary how quickly Ms. Edmonds' story has evolved in just two short months. What's more is that this blog [ed note: We checked for clarity, and he's specifically referring to The BRAD BLOG as a whole. See our response below.] entirely ignores the fact that the allegations she made about Congresswoman Schakowsky have been shown to be untrue on their face.

In Ms. Edmonds' sworn deposition on August 8, 2009 in Washington, DC, she states as a fact, under oath that the imagined tryst occurred between the fictional spy and Congresswoman Schakowsky "in her townhouse actually in this area."

In a subsequent interview with Pat Buchannan's [sic] magazine, The American Conservative, she claims that after the year 2000, "When Jan Schakowsky's mother died, the Turkish woman went to the funeral, hoping to exploit her vulnerability. They later were intimate in Schakowsky's townhouse, which had been set up with recording devices and hidden cameras."

When these claims were shown to be untrue beyond a shadow of a doubt, Ms. Edmonds' changed her story. Aside from the fact that Congresswoman has never owned a townhouse, her mother passed in 1987, long before the interaction was to have occurred in Ms. Edmonds' mind.

Now, Ms. Edmonds' says, "Is this a townhouse she owned/owns? I don't know. Did it belong to the female operative? I don't know." [ed note: Edmonds full response was posted here.]

She has also revised her story about the funeral. Now Ms. Edmonds' says, "The female operative in question was to accompany Mrs. Schakowsky to the funeral for 'the mother' and stay with her afterwards."

Ms. Edmonds has made charges about Congresswoman Schakowsky based on no evidence whatsoever except her own assertions of what she claims to have remembered from seven years ago. Now, when the key elements of her story are proven to be completely untrue, she changes them and still marvels that her credibility is being questioned. Not to mention lying under oath is a serious issue.

Congresswoman Schakowsky has been a long time supporter of gay and lesbian rights. However, she is happily married and has never had a sexual relationship with any woman, much less a Turkish spy.

I am not going to engage in this silly back and forth game. They have my letter. It is very clear. Not only me, but the majority of the Americans would like to see her action in congress. I have already responded to these lines, and they have not responded to my letter, nor have they taken back their baseless attack on my credibility. That's a shame. I thought the congresswoman was above those ugly attacks and nasty language. Unfortunately she is not.

Sincerely,
Sibel Edmonds

In regard to Kincaid's suggestion that The BRAD BLOG "entirely ignores the fact that the allegations [Edmonds] made about Congresswoman Schakowsky have been shown to be untrue on their face," we respectfully disagree. We have gone out of our way --- in both our previous article, featuring the original Schakowsky/Edmonds responses, and in this one --- to be fair to both parties by allowing them to offer their on-the-record responses in full.

We have attempted to offer readers both the background and the specifics of the allegations (from both Edmonds' 8/8/09 sworn deposition, as well as her Nov '01 cover story interview in American Conservative magazine as published this week) on this element of Edmonds' many serious charges, while giving the Congresswoman the chance to fairly and fully respond and/or rebut, along with publishing the various responses from both parties to those responses, which followed in turn.

We've withheld comment one way or another on what is true or false in the various allegations and responses, in order to allow readers to absorb the original source responses as is, while allowing us to attempt, in the background, to ascertain more facts which might help those interested in this aspect of the allegations, to untangle the various conflicting points. We could have withheld all responses until we were able to fact-check each of them, with our limited resources, but given the seriousness of the already-published charges elsewhere, we felt it was better to allow the parties to respond, as quickly as possible, in their own voices.

There are, indeed, apparently-conflicting fact issues "on their face" in Edmonds' version of the story, as noted by Schakowsky's rebuttals. As well, there are also seeming-inaccuracies "on their face" in parts of Schakowsky's rebuttal that similarly appear to conflict with the available public record. We are attempting to unpack and investigate all of those issues, where possible, before offering our opinions on either party's account of the matter. We believe that readers are capable, in the meantime, of making up their own minds about the issues at hand, as based on what is so far available on the public record --- from all sides --- as we've tried to clearly and helpfully document on these pages.

Philip Giraldi, former CIA and DIA officer, on US/Israel relations, AIPAC, wiretapping and Rep. Jane Harman. This is the third installment of Boiling Frogs interviews co-hosted with Sibel Edmonds, and is quite explosive.

Giraldi, a self-described conservative who was critical of the Bush administration on many issues, is equally critical of Obama and Democrats who are influenced by AIPAC. Giraldi gives background and details on the interception of Rep. Harman’s phone conversation with an Israeli: she agreed to intervene on behalf of two Israelis caught spying on the US, and in return hoped they would help her win the chairmanship of the House Intelligence Committee.

And, Brad you know me, and know that this is an honest question on my part, albeit perhaps influenced by reading too much John LeCarre.

But here's thought/ question re: the Schakowsky part Edmonds testimony and the Schwkowsky response- might it be possible that both Edmonds and Schakowsky are telling the absolute truth?

Edmonds is correctly reporting the content of tapes she was asked to translate AND Schakowsky is correct in denying that what was on the tapes is incorrect? It you think about it, it doesn't have to be either/ or. Mind you, I am asking this ONLY in the specific context of the Edmonds/ Schakowsky issue.

On the one hand (easiest to quote from BB)

~~details of what she heard while reviewing and translating wiretaps of Turkish agents who were targets of a long-running FBI investigation centered out of Chicago, but extending far beyond~~

But
~~~Edmonds was fired by the FBI in 2002, after she began reporting to her superiors on a colleague in the translation department who was, herself, a member of one of the Turkish organizations being targeted by the FBI's counterintelligence investigation~~~

Okay, I hope I can explain this correctly- the way I read this, a superior to Edmonds was a member of one of the targeted organizations, thus someone with dual allegiance or just a mole in the FBI. What is important is part is how long that superior had been at the FBI, and the extent of their knowledge about the FBI investigation, and THUS, the ability to shape the info that Turkish agents conveyed?

Supposing these Turkish agents had a head's up that they were being wire tapped? And thus, could throw a spanner in the works by discussing on some occasions true "info" and but on select other occasions throwing out a total fabrication to be taped? Bluff, double bluff, or something like that? The intent being to totally confuse the issue?

Brad, you know me, and I hope you know I am not being a crank here. It just occurs to me that in matters of espionage there may extra levels of misdirection.

With all due respect to Ms. Edmonds, what we have here is a massively blown opportunity.

Here's what she/we SHOULD have done with this: she should have used this information to arm-twist Schakowsky into using her influential position to spearhead a congressional investigation --- on promise of full immunity and zero disclosure ABOUT HER. This is the way it's done. You cut deals.

Someone should have said to her, you pursue this, or the information goes out wide and the shitstorm will hit.

There may still be a chance to salvage this.
But otherwise jeez. Golden opportunity, blown. This info will all disappear shortly down the rabbit hole.

Yes, both Schakowsky and Edmonds could be telling the truth as they each understand it. And yes, there could have been disinformation on the tapes. There are also a number of other plausible scenarios along similar lines. (Eg, Edmonds could be correct, but has mis-remembered several details, etc.) Trying to untangle it all in the background, as well as I can, as noted in my update abobve.

In regard to the co-worker, I don't believe she was not a "superior", but rather another colleague in the translation dept. as I recall the details. But when Edmonds complained to superiors, that's what eventually lead to her firing (about which she filed for whistleblower protection, but was blocked from presenting her case by the invocation of "State Secrets Privilege" all the way up to the U.S. Supreme Court).

I would agree with Cosimo's comment, that your suggestion sounds a LOT like extortion. At least in the way you've spelled it out. Certainly the "Someone should have said to her, you pursue this, or the information goes out wide and the shitstorm will hit" part!

The whistleblower is not the cops! It may work the other way around, where law enforcement can make such legal deals, with the permission of a judge, etc. But if you reverse it, it's extortion (which is an interesting contrast, in and of itself, but an entirely different matter )

And, for the rest of you, what Brad is pointing out is that I misread one part that was actually quite clear in the BB comment I quoted (As I see upon rereading; Ouch, my apologies Brad) Edmonds was reporting to a superior about a co-worker- follow the link Brad gives to this odd part of the story.

And Brad I hope you know I wasn't meaning to cast a negative light on your great reporting and all efforts throughout, nor on your critical nouse.

I was just wondering "what if..." and posted it as a comment. Tho, given that I misread one major detail, maybe I've ruined my own cred.

Thanks for your continuing work on this and other issues since way back when I first discovered BradBlog. I'm happy to give my $$ when I can manage, to BB, the only blog I give $$ to. Hmmm... okay, where's my debit card?

Brad- update okay, found my debit card and used it on your behalf. Thank you also for accepting straight out debit/ credit cards for contributions without making donors (e.g. me) go through the hoops of having to get a f*****g PayPal account!!!

OK, so this is largely an exercise in pedantry, as clearly there would be ethical/moral issues with coercing Schakowsky's cooperation, but Findlaw describes extortion as:

"Most states define extortion as the gaining of property or money by almost any kind of force, or threat of 1) violence, 2) property damage, 3) harm to reputation, or 4) unfavorable government action. While usually viewed as a form of theft/larceny, extortion differs from robbery in that the threat in question does not pose an imminent physical danger to the victim."

Doesn't really apply. The "only" gain would be the public good resulting from her simply doing her job.

Lawyers.com defines blackmail as:

"extortion or coercion by often written threats esp. of public exposure, physical harm, or criminal prosecution"

Maybe.

Anyway, the real reason I'm posting is to point out that Raw Story once again has some links to this issue (though no original reporting). Hopefully these are less ephemeral than the last one they had for all of about an hour or two a couple of weeks back.

Anyone else notice how the MSMer's are not even questioning what Obama said about Iran today. Now let's just say they (Brown, Sarkozy, Obama) are right. Why after the run up to the invasion of Iraq and all of the false claims that the MSM endlessly repeated. Why the fuck would they not simply ask some logical quesions "where is the intelligence from? Are these verifiable claims?

Does Iran have to alert the IAEA to these constructions? What is the time line?

All we are seeing is the same script, new country, different President.

Hope this is not Obama's "Niger Document" moment

Oh by the way we have never seen one person held accountable for the false pre-war intelligence. No those murderers have moved on to re-write history

The very first sentence of her open letter to Shakowsky contians a glaring falsehood. Edmonds writes,
"It is an age-old tactic, when one cannot refute statements with facts, to attempt to discredit the witness. Rather than exchanging accusations, let me just go on record with facts and detailed citations."

That is simply not true! Shakowsky DID respond to Edmonds initial allegations with factual information. Shakowsky pointed out that Edmonds was incorrect about the date of Shakowsky's mother's funeral by many years and that Edmonds was incorrect about Shakowski living in or owning a townhouse. What is one to make of that?

Further, Edmonds initial claim about Shakowsky only provided a FEW details and two of those details were factually incorrect. I find it extremely odd and deeply distressing that Edmonds does not address these errors of fact in her long open letter. She certainly was aware that she was incorrect in her initial claim as she obviously responds directly to Shakowsky's rebuttal in this response. Why does she not explain or clarify these glaring falsehoods in her claims against Shakowsky?

Lastly, Edmonds ends her letter with:
"The last time I saw a similar attack on my credibility was when Dennis Hastert issued a non-denial denial to information contained in a previous magazine article. He later gave up his seat, registered himself (under FARA) as an agent for the government of Turkey, and went on to collect $35,000 per month as a foreign agent. I certainly hope you are not planning to follow his footsteps by giving up your seat and officially registering with a foreign government."

This bit of slime reveals just a bit more about Edmonds. She ends her long open letter by smearing Shakowsky by implication. What is one to think of that cheap shot?

In short, each time Edmonds drops a new bombshell or pens an open letter, she reveals a bit more about herself. What she reveals here does not do her credibility any good in my mind.

The interesting thing about this recent chapter is that I see NO rebuttal, or attempt to discredit, the numerous collaborative people, files, and transcripts that Sibel lists in her letter. Even the poster above me, "Vinnie", goes out of his way to assault Sibel's character, while completely ignoring the meat of her letter.

Kincaid's reputtal is equally as devoid of substance. It is truly a shame that debate on this has became one of arguing side issues and trivia, while ignoring the more disarming aspects of Sibel's accusations.

I can't help but wonder if the Shakowsky part of this thing is the weak link in Sibel's assertions, therefore the area that Grossman, Hastert, and crew have decided to make their first stand. If Sibel's info on this has holes they realize they can exploit to discredit the whole of Sibel's accusations, it may explain why Shakowsky has been handed the dueling pistols.

Today, I called our local conservative radio talk show host, and, on the air, assked her if she was following the Sibel Edmonds affair. She claimed to have never heard of Sibel, so I referred her to the American Conservative article. She has a small amount of national exposure, as she has appeared with Hannity on Fox, so it will be interesting to call in again on Monday, press her again, and see how she reacts. But at least Sibel's name got out on the mainstream airwaves in Central California, so even if she refuses to air the issue, I can assume a listener or two did some surfing. I hope people concerned about this issue, and reading this, take the time to do the same. It took me less than five minutes, and hundreds of thousands of people heard Sibel Edmonds name, and a brief summary about the accusations. Its not a wasteful expenditure of time.

Still no support over at TWN, basically tooting the horn there on my own. Too bad, some very heavyweight people read TWN, and when just one person argues an issue, people tend to tune out. This won't go mainstream because they come looking for us, we have to take it to them.

Another note...It is beginning to remind me very much of the pre-Invasion days running up to the attack on Iraq. The MSM is rattling the terrorist fear klaxon at us big time, and now we are hearing about "secret" Iranian nuclear enrichment facilities. Remember the Iraqi "secret" bio weapons labs that they bullshitted us with? Are we really dumb enough to fall for this horseshit again?? It appears that Obama and crew think we are. I hope they're wrong, but I'm not optimistic. One thing is for sure, something big is coming up, and be prepared to see Sibel's thing die on the vine unless we REALLY push it.

I don't believe you are anything other than a Turkish lobby stooge or a Schakowsky supporter.

1. Schakowsky nowhere denies a relationship with the Turkish woman. She does use ad hominem attacks. Contrary to your impression, attacking the character of the speaker rather than answering the factual allegations made is a classic rhetorical technique which is easily unmasked.

2. Sibel's character is not relevant, although it has been vouchsafed at every turn- Inspector General, Senators, fellow FBI Agents. What evidence do you have that she has consciously exaggerated or lied about anything?

3. Do you seriously believe that her charges do not deserve open public investigation? On what basis can her charges be ignored?

4. As to her claims of what the tapes say, or what special agents told her, her testimony is easy to corroborate or disprove. What is the harm in that?

I don't know enough about the Edmonds/Schakowsky conflict to attempt any opinion on which side has the right of it as yet.

But I do know that I am truly saddened and a bit disgusted that with all the allegations Sibel has made concerning potentially treasonous acts by members of Congress, the one act we are focused on contains no wrongdoing by this congresswoman in terms of national security, but is the alleged sex act between same-sex partners and ouside the bounds of marriage, allegedly set up for the purpose of potential blackmail and/or espionage.

Ooooooh! Secret Agent Man!

You let the wrong word slip
While kissing persuasive lips
Odds are you won't live to see tomorrow

When will we grow up?

Frankly I think Congresswoman Schakowsky and all of us should insist that her private life is private and any attempt to investigate her sex life should be stopped at once.

Don't we have better things to do and actual serious wrongs to investigate? We risk ruining s person's career over an allegation about forbidden sex. Come on, people. Been there, done that, haven't we?

In the words of Tripper (Bill Murray, Meatballs):

It Just Doesn't Matter.

What DOES matter is who's selling which secrets to another government! Or whose cooperation was bought in order to save another government big bucks!

Lora is correct that someone's sexual orientation is their own business, excepting that it's also the business of their partner(s). That said, the important matter is whether or not Schakowsky was ever blackmailed, assuming there to be any truth to the allegations. Edmonds has already stated she has no knowledge of any blackmail occurring. Frankly, for me I'm just astounded that Turkey could be performing such successful espionage against our government and its people. I mean, c'mon, Turkey?! I never would've have guessed them to be such proficient spies. I would've thought Russia or Israel, or China. If this is even partially true than I hate to imagine what those guys are busy doing to us right now. There's a big part of me that hopes this stuff isn't true, but the rest of me knows that someone else out there will want to take advantage of that part. In the end, all I can ask myself is what the hell do I know anyway? I'll just have to sit back with the rest of you and see how this unfolds.

"I'll just have to sit back with the rest of you and see how this unfolds"

Well, you won't be "sitting back" with me. I'm old enough, and savvy enough, to know that we won't expose a damned thing by "sitting back".

What would we be talking about if Brad, Sibel, and Philip has just "sat back" to see what unfolded?

Get with the program, man. Call your local media and raise a stink. We stand a better chance of getting some momentum for this story by targeting local media, as it is already obvious the big player MSM media is purposely avoiding it. Reach out to HUNGRY editors, station managers, and radio hosts.

I think Vinnie from Indy has a point. Schakowsky's refutations of Sibel's assertions may seem picayune, but I'd also like to hear how Sibel explains the discrepancies. Mind you, I think Schakowsky and her communications director are running scared, but it's key that we keep our side of the street as clean as we can.
And I mean "we" in the sense that I'm on Sibel's side in this; I think she's telling the truth.

Oh, PissedOffAmerican, I knew someone would take that part of my comment in that manner. I'm trying to do my part. I plan to e-mail two sources kooky enough to cover this. Glenn Beck (because he's insane, but he claims to be neither republican nor democrat (a debatable assertion I know) and this story is perfect for such a claimant as it has people from both sides of the aisle) and the Daily Show (because aspects of this are funny, at least to me (I mean, really, Turkey?))In the end however my super powers are limited and eventually all anyone can do is sit back and watch life unfold. At least to some extent. Maybe that's being too existentialist. But I'm telling people I know about it, trying to do my part.

Frankly I think Congresswoman Schakowsky and all of us should insist that her private life is private and any attempt to investigate her sex life should be stopped at once.

Don't we have better things to do and actual serious wrongs to investigate?

You do not think that it's an issue if a member of the U.S. House Select Comm. on Intelligence (and the chair of it's Subcomm on Oversight and Investigation) has been exposed, opened to, potentially compromised by blackmail??

I share your feeling, in that I don't give a damn what she does in her personal life. And were it something that couldn't be used for blackmail purposes, there would be no point to either these discussions, or the supposed attempts at a setup for blackmail purposes. But for someone in that position to allegedly have something like that which could compromise them, that seems like a concern to me. And also a good reason to determine if it's accurate or not accurate.

Vinnie from Indy - Your thoughts are appreciated. Certainly more than your persistent, inaccurate attacks on another whistleblower, Clint Curtis, if I remember correctly, back in the day.

Styve - Sorry you're having problems with the site. If/when people like yourself decide to actually donate in any reasonable amount that I can afford to use some of it to hire a programmer to upgrade/redesign, I'll be happy to. Would love to, in fact. Until then, we're all stuck with my own somewhat limited skills and nearly non-existent free time. But other than that, I hope you find a way to enjoy the content offered here, for free, nonetheless.

I, too, offer kudos for her courage.
She also seems to be doing the best that she can with the tools at her disposal.http://www.archive.org/details/killthemessenger
Very well produced documentary. Also certain to go the way of "The Power of Nightmares". It won't be licensed for viewing in this country.
Keep it up, Sibel. You got close to an opening.
Brad, some of us out here in the e-mist have some skills. What would you like to see changed?

You do not think that it's an issue if a member of the U.S. House Select Comm. on Intelligence (and the chair of it's Subcomm on Oversight and Investigation) has been exposed, opened to, potentially compromised by blackmail?

The key word here is potentially. This allegation has more to do with sex than blackmail. Sibel's other allegations have to do with alleged actual serious, possibly traitorous wrongdoings.

Sadly, the public will be focused on the forbidden sex part and elements will try to use it to ruin a democratic congressperson's career, when her sex life just doesn't matter. We should, IMO, say it and mean it, and give backing to all public figures who are harrassed because of their alleged sex life with consenting adults.

The sex part will also serve as a major distraction from issues that really do matter.

However, because the allegation is out there, and because the allegation may have serious consequences, I do appreciate and applaud your efforts to get the facts straight and look at the evidence.

Unless there is evidence of actual blackmail with regard to the Congresswoman, and there isn't as far as we know, I think it best for all of us to focus on some of Sibel's other allegations.

The problem I have with all of this is that Sibel is a little naive about what she thinks are "the facts." I believe she translated what she translated, but what isn't answered is why she would believe those who spoke it on the tapes were being truthful? These are conversations among underworld types and spies.

What is the name of the operative who spoke this, so we can verify "the fact" she claims on the record?

This is the trouble with pseudo-journalism like this blog. I admire your work and defend it --- don't get me wrong --- but trained, professional journalists would dig deeper for substantiation before publishing something so potentially damaging.

your comments ignore that The Times of London, Vanity Fair and 60 Minutes all covered Sibel's charges, as did TAC. Moreover, Sibel is prohibited by law and patriotism from disclosing information about sources and methods- she cannot identify information that journalists ordinarily have with which to follow up.

It is also simply untrue that charges mmade by whistleblowers don't get published.

Nor is it fair to claim that this blog is a purely journalistic one. Brad has a point of view. But that point of view as I read it has never concluded that Sibel's statements are true. It has been that her charges are credible and worth investigating.

Sadly, if it takes raking Shakowsky's sex live over the coals to get Sibel's charges to be investigated, so be it. Certainly, we live in a society that can be more motivated by tittilation than by moral concern. Shakowsky's reputation and career are a small price to pay if it leads to further investigation before the public's eye.

Lora, considering Shakowsky's responses thus far, do you think she would hesitate to drag Sibel's name into the gutter if she felt it would shut her up? And hasn't Sibel already paid with HER career, and much more?

This allegation has more to do with sex than blackmail. Sibel's other allegations have to do with alleged actual serious, possibly traitorous wrongdoings.

I will respectfully disagree with you there, even as I appreciate your point of view. If the allegations of a secretly video-taped sexual affair with a female Turkish agent are true, then --- while I don't give a damn about someone's private sexual life, as long as it's legal and consenting --- it raises serious issues of a compromised, high-ranking government official tasked with overseeing the very thing that she may herself have become involved in, in such a way that she'd have a difficult, if not impossible time, exposing, due to her own conflicts.

That's a problem, as I see it. A big one.

Sadly, the public will be focused on the forbidden sex part and elements will try to use it to ruin a democratic congressperson's career, when her sex life just doesn't matter.

As stated, I disagree on whether it matters or not. That said, I suspect the point that she's a "democratic congressperson" may be affecting your judgement here. For the record, I too likely Schakowsky. But that's not the issue here.

We should, IMO, say it and mean it, and give backing to all public figures who are harrassed because of their alleged sex life with consenting adults.

This is the trouble with pseudo-journalism like this blog. I admire your work and defend it --- don't get me wrong --- but trained, professional journalists would dig deeper for substantiation before publishing something so potentially damaging.

In fact, we did "dig deeper for substantiation before publishing something so potentially damaging". In fact, we didn't publish it, even though we long knew who the Congresswoman in question actually was! The American Conservative published it. We reported that they did so, and then attempted to offer perspective and comment from those involved, etc. as quickly as possible.

We believe that was the right thing to do, and something other outlets who practice pseudo-journalism, such as AP, New York Times, Washington Post et al, should have done long ago.

The writer of that letter, Dan Kervick, is a regular and well respected commentor at the TWN blogsite.

The reason I bring this up is to demonstrate the dividend that a very small effort can pay. I found this letter by doing a google advanced search on "Sibel Edmonds" this morning. So, expending the time it took to compose three short paragraphs, Dan not only put Sibel into the minds of an unknown number of Concord Monitor subscribers, he also managed to get his comment up as the third item on a date sorted google news search on "Sibel Edmonds". How many people has Dan reached through minimal effort?

These are the kinds of efforts that will slowly nudge this story into the mainstream. Philip, Brad, and Sibel have worked dilligently to do their part, but all for naught if we don't do our part.

Over at TWN, the usual suspect is working hard to shove Sibel's story into the same chapter the birthers have been consigned to. And he has far more time to flood the issue with obsfucation and bullshit than I have to rebut his every post. Its a shame that those of you that are in the know on this issue, far more than I am, aren't making an effort to carry some water for Sibel over there. Its an important blog, and some reasonable informed debate about Sibel has the potential to grow legs.

You act like everyone should know, but the web is sooo vast, so many sites, so little time.

Please enlighten me, I need a new battleground.....having vanquished all my foes on other right leaning sites.

And as much as I love Brad's, a few similar great ones, where 90 some odd % agree w/me........i often get in an ornery mood where I prefer to be disagreed with, then let the vitriol and poetic snarkyness flow, oh boy, maybe even the odd fact or logical argument.

Brad and Joe Blow, reporting names in what Sibel translated isn't responsible journalism, which is why the major media sources aren't publishing it and not because they are afraid or protecting anyone.

Sibel is not a privileged, first-hand source for these facts. She is a translator ... the person who heard others say it and who isn't telling us the name of the person who she heard it from so we can trace it back to the privileged source. She may not even know the name of the person who said it, and likely wasn't privy to the full context of the conversation, let alone the players or the reason for the conversation.

It's tantamount to gossip, just a political version of the National Enquirer or Star magazine. Naming the congresswoman crossed the line.

I am a professional journalist, and I don't defend much in MSM today, but this is a matter of fundamental news judgment. The fact you're repeating the American Conservative's poor judgment isn't very satisfying.

Most of us learned early in our careers that the pen is, indeed, powerful. Respected media have the power to ruin lives and change public policy. It's not something professional journalists take lightly. I hope my 2 cents gives you some worthwhile food for thought.

Example, Brad, you reported, as a matter of fact: "The tryst, according to Edmonds, was video-taped by the Turks for possible use in a blackmail scheme, though Edmonds left the FBI before learning whether or not the Congresswoman was ever blackmailed."

In professional terms, attributing this to Edmonds means that you have verified that she, personally, received the videotape from the Turk who filmed it and she watched the whole tape to make these claims. It also means she spoke directly, first-hand with the person who was scheming to blackmail, but she did not speak to anyone who actually reached the congresswoman to make the deal.

I doubt that attribution is reliable to the information given. I understood Edmonds to say she overheard someone on a phone recording make claims that such things happened. That person could have been making it all up to manipulate behavior from the listener.

The attribution dots haven't been connected.

This is a long, looong way from being a "fact." The only fact is that Edmonds translated underworld conversations whose authenticity she is in no position to validate.

There's no moral high-ground in naming someone, especially as party to a "tryst" that wouldn't be illegal even if every bit of gossip Edmonds heard were true.

I think it would be helpful for Edmonds to provide a simple list of the people she has named in her allegations of treason, blackmail and the selling of state secrets. As far as I have been able to tell the list is quite long and continues to grow each time Edmonds grants an interview or writes an open letter.

One thing is certain, if Edmonds claims are true, she can easily lay claim to the most eventful few weeks as a contract employee at the FBI EVER! She worked there for 24 weeks as I understand it. Hell, most people spend the first few weeks simply finding there way around the building etc. In Edmonds few weeks at the FBI she allegedly uncovered a conspiracy of high treason and the selling of state secrets by powerful, sitting members of Congress and senior White House officials as well as an enormous spy network run by the Turks that included not only several members of Congress and senior White House officials, but also the Mayor of Chicago and several Illinois state legislators. If that were not enough to shock and awe, Edmonds was also allegedly recruited to join the very same network that she was reading about in her day to day work translating documents. If true, it is without question one of the most amazing stories in the history of America.

Then you'd think you'd be "professionally" working to inform the public sufficiently that a hew and cry can be raised to demand investigations into the more egregious of Sibel's claims, instead of nipping at Brad's hamstrings.

I doubt your self proclaimed journalistic professionalism, because of the transparent focus and intent of your comments.

"Respected media have the power to ruin lives and change public policy"

And they do so on a daily basis, if your version of "respected media" is what currently masquerades as the Fourth Estate. Who are these "respected media" that you so glowingly endorse? Name one, just one. Miller??? Novak?? Hannity? Beck?? Olbermann? Does being a well paid mouthpiece, disguising political marketing as "news" qualify you?

So, here we have Friedman, trying to investigate a story that any moral and ethical "professional journalist" should be conscience driven to investigate, if only to disprove Sibel's assertions so that the names of those accused can be cleared...

And we have you, posting comments in the back room of a blog that has very lttle exposure when compared to that of MSNBC, CNN, FOX, the NYTimes, etc., nitpicking over what is really trivia when compared to the whole body of what Sibel alleges.

"Professional journalist". Yeah, right.

You're "cheeky" all right. Trouble is, your attitude and focus shows us that your head is firmly lodged tightly between the two fleshy masses from which you draw your name.

Hey, just chiming in to agree with POA on the matter of Cheeky. At least to agree with the gist of what he said. Also, I propose we rename Lora as Mrs.Shakowsky. Seriously, she seems to employ some wonderful sophistry by suggesting that we are all actually interested in Shakowsky's sex life, when that is a secondary consideration that only matters if it has been used against her to compromise her integrity. Seriouly, Lora, you are the one so tightly focused on that one allegation. You're looking at the tree and missing the forest, or you're trying to control and divert the conversation. Who knows which? Not me.

PissedOff, journalists report verified, first-hand facts from their vetted sources, so their audiences may decide for themselves how they might choose to react. Journalists do not crusade to manipulate reactions, although the management may do so in its editorials.

Rule of thumb, with rare exception, is that we verify a newsworthy claim by three independent sources before it's certain enough to publish as fact.

I am not minimizing the role of a blog to crusade for a cause based on facts that are professionally reported, but in this case the line is being blurred. No professional media has vetted and reported as fact the claims Edmonds understood on those tapes she translated.

You can doubt me if you like; that's your choice. I'm just telling you how news judgments are made in the old-school professional world, back when MSM was respected. And I understand the way MSM today operates gives you plenty of reason to doubt any of us, all the time.

I think the ball is in Edmonds' court to produce the person whose conversation she was transcribing, much as the NYT should have made Dick Cheney and Condi Rice produce Curveball for editors to vet with such critical "news" that was key to a march to an unjust war.

OK, cheeky, Edmonds will just go find the person or persons whose conversation she was transcribing, take them to Larry King and talk about how they were involved in Turkish espionage against the US. That'll be a cinch. Seriously, as a professional journalist, are you allowed to report on what other people are reporting if you can verify from three sources that it was reported? And where did you cut your teeth as a journalist, at a newspaper or on TV?

".....journalists report verified, first-hand facts from their vetted sources, so their audiences may decide for themselves how they might choose to react"

What a bunch of rot. You need look no further than the current snakeoil being bandied about the not so secret "secret" Iranian nuclear facility to dispel your bizzarro representation of modern day journalistic integrity.

A look into the current state of American media renders those such as Brad into the category of "proffessional journalist", while necessarily concluding that what passes for "news" these days, mainstream, is a compilation of management scripted talking points that rarely, if ever, resemble the actual facts. "Journalists", apparently, have become a highly paid contingent of buffoonish marionettes, mixing sarcasm and propaganda into a divisive stew designed to keep the masses bickering over bullshit while their corporate masters loot the coffers, with the able assistance of the type of scum Sibel seeks to expose.

Now, you want to natter on about journalistic integrity??? Fine. Show us some. I dare ya. Wheres it at? Point us to it.

Cheeky, I don't claim to be very "intellectual curious" but I've always had a thing for smart chicks. Anyway, I don't believe any of Edmonds' claims can be verified without government assistance, and that's what we're all having a hard time getting. Thus the need to have the story more widely reported so as to put public pressure on a potentially highly corrupt government to come clean. Or something like that. And you didn't tell me, newspaper or TV?

PissedOff, if you actually read my post you'd see I agree you have cause to be distrustful of modern American journalism. Funny though, you're not the least bit distrustful of the American Conservative magazine.

Sy Hersch is one of the very few journalists I trust today. And I haven't seen him reporting he has verified anything Edmonds remembers translating from those circa 2001 audio tapes of alleged phone taps of unknown players.

Cheeky, I'm sorry that I am easily confused and you don't have your editor looking over your shoulder correcting your mistakes. You must be from print journalism, I'm now going to assume. Now, print journalist Cheeky, help me further by telling me how to find the name of the person (and are we sure it was only one person, as I thought she was transcribing conversations and there were probably at least two people involved)? Google search the FBI files?

Also, cheeky, you are the one who is alleging that people here are irresponsibly reporting "gossip as 'facts'". It is a fact that serious allegations have been made by Edmonds, but I don't think anyone here is convinced of the veracity of the allegations. We're just curious why we're the only ones so curious about such serious allegations. And if you haven't actually done it please check out this link-http://amconmag.com/article/2009/nov/01/00006/

"funny though, you're not the least bit distrustful of the American Conservative magazine"

Look, Cheeky, questions,....whatever your name is.....

American Conservative printed an INTERVIEW. It really doesn't matter whether or not I trust American Conservative, Philip Giraldi, or Santa Claus. It really doesn't even matter if I do or don't trust Sibel. No matter what side of the trust aisle I stand, common sense dictates that I'd like to see the truth come out about Sibel's accusations. Is Sibel some sort of lying publicity seeker??? Is our government hiding corruption and espionage on a huge scale??? Are our foreign policies being dictated by concerns for national security, or blackmail, bribery, and treason?

Have you seen me state categorically that Sibel speaks the truth? I don't believe I ever have. I advocate for some "journalists", of the caliber you are fond of fantacizing yourself to be, to launch thorough and comprehensive investigations, in the hopes that enough can be unearthed to warrant and demand governmental investigations. The object, it seems to me, should be to get at the truth. Now, Mr. Proffessional Journalist, just what the hell are YOU doing to reach that end?

Its easy to ask questions of your readers that you know they have no way to answer, cheeky. Its also a dissingenuous and despicable manner of debate. It is yet one more reason I distrust your self proclaimed designation of "proffessional journalist".

As far as American Conservative goes, printing the Sibel Edmonds interview does not give me a reason to "trust" them, or distrust them. It does, however, give me some incentive to respect them. I tried a trial subscription to AC magazine, and let the offer lapse because its content didn't seem to match my ideological leanings. I may reconsider.

Cheeky, in re: several of your comments above (and apologies that I haven't been able to respond to each, as I'm on the road this weekend, speaking on a Media Reform panel in San Diego, so this will have to be quick for now...with my apologies again):

Example, Brad, you reported, as a matter of fact: "The tryst, according to Edmonds, was video-taped by the Turks for possible use in a blackmail scheme, though Edmonds left the FBI before learning whether or not the Congresswoman was ever blackmailed."

In professional terms, attributing this to Edmonds means that you have verified that she, personally, received the videotape from the Turk who filmed it and she watched the whole tape to make these claims.

With all due respect, Cheeky, that's just utterly incorrect. A respected FBI source (respected by bi-partisan Congressmembers on the record, the DoJ IG, etc.) has said the tryst was video-taped. I reported that that's what she said. I have looked into various aspects of that allegation, and others, and hope to keep looking. Her knowledge is based, as she says, on what she heard while translating direct wiretaps. Not, as you seem to indicate in several of your notes, from someone else talking about the wiretaps.

Sibel is not a privileged, first-hand source for these facts. She is a translator ... the person who heard others say it and who isn't telling us the name of the person who she heard it from so we can trace it back to the privileged source.

Also incorect. As noted above, she is reporting what she heard on those tapes, and what was learned during the course of the FBI counterintel investigation, on which she worked very closely with field agents, had to be fully briefed on the case to date, the reason for the wiretaps, etc. She IS "the person who heard others say it", at least if she is to be believed. And there is plenty of reason, so far, to believe her (which I'll presume you're all aware of, since I don't have time right now to go back and offer the cites to the public officials and official reports who have shored up her credibility, or the reports from news outlets from UK Sunday Time or Vanity Fair, etc. who have similarly corroborated elements of her allegations.)

It's tantamount to gossip, just a political version of the National Enquirer or Star magazine. Naming the congresswoman crossed the line

Complete and utter nonsense. She is an official source. And yes, I'm glad you noted that Cheney, Rice, Bush, Rumsfeld, Powell, Bolton, Perle, Wolfowitz, et all were allowed for years, to say whatever they liked, no matter how untrue it was --- and no matter how much it had already actually even been debunked! --- across every major corporate media outlet.

As to crossing the line, did you feel similiarly when she had named Hastert, Burton, Blunt, Solarz, Lantos, Grossman, etc.? Because those were all named, in various ways, years ago. Did you write similar letters to Vanity Fair? To UK Sunday Times? Did you feel that was the political version of the National Enquirer? Or only now that Schakowsky's name has shown up amongst those named???

Wrong again. See above (re: Cheney, Rumsfeld, et al). Furthermore, if you believe the alleged espionage agents are going to step forward to say "Yes, I was the one who gave a hundred thousands dollars to Congressman X", I think you'll be waiting for quite a while. Even if I knew the name of that person, it seems unlikely that "first-hand ... vetted source" will be admitting it on the record.

No professional media has vetted and reported as fact the claims Edmonds understood on those tapes she translated.

Wrong again. See UK Sunday Times three part series, see Vanity Fair (David Rose, 2005), and a bit of CBS 60 Minutes from 2002.

I think the ball is in Edmonds' court to produce the person whose conversation she was transcribing

As noted above, the criminals she was listening to, are not likely to come forward. She has, however, produced, by name, those she says were criminal elements in the U.S. government. I don't know that she'll be able to torture out a public confession from the saboteur agents, however. Requesting same before the story can be investigated/reported, seems rather absurd.

I do appreciate the discussion, however. Apologize if I'm more terse than necessary (as I'm on the road, and must get to a meeting 10 mins ago). And if I can't get back to this one until later tonight or tomorrow. But I'll try.

I think it would be helpful for Edmonds to provide a simple list of the people she has named in her allegations of treason, blackmail and the selling of state secrets. As far as I have been able to tell the list is quite long and continues to grow each time Edmonds grants an interview or writes an open letter.

That list was provided long ago, years ago (minus Schakowsky's name, though her "photo" was always there with a question mark), right here.

It's really not my fault that you didn't know about it. And no, the list has not "continue[d] to grow each time Edmonds grants an interview". It's the same list. Again, not my fault you haven't bothered to find out about it.

One thing is certain, if Edmonds claims are true, she can easily lay claim to the most eventful few weeks as a contract employee at the FBI EVER! She worked there for 24 weeks as I understand it.

Um, you do understand that she was plowing through YEARS of wiretaps from 1996 through 2002, right?

If true, it is without question one of the most amazing stories in the history of America.

While I appreciate the spirited defense, and worthwhile debate, please avoid personal attacks on other commenters (you may personally attack me and/or any public officials all you like, but not other commenters). That would be in violation of our rules.

As your attack on "Cheeky" here also included legitimate points, I'm loathe to delete the entire comment, as I normally would. But I will do so if "Cheeky" so requests. Beyond that, I'd ask you to tone back the attacks, if you can.

On the other hand, since folks are allowed to attack me, I'm allowed to fire back in kind. Though I try to avoid such personal attacks in all but the most important of cases!

Since the internet has such a long memory, I will wager here and now that if documents are ever produced by the FBI that seem to refute Edmonds claims and they have ANY redactions at all, she will still claim that the FBI is hiding the truth of her claims. Any takers?

Edmonds has the perfect excuse for never having to corroborate any of her explosive claims. For example, it could very well be that Edmonds does have specific file references of documents that she translated. She has routinely referenced these file numbers in her open letters and interviews. She may also know that in those files are highly secret operational methods and procedures that will be redacted if they are ever produced. She also knows that she will be able to claim that these redactions contain all the information she claims will verify her allegations. I don't know what the answer is and I do not know if Edmonds is telling the truth. I do know that her story deserves intense scrutiny based on her allegations, her open letters and her interviews. In short, regardless of whether the FBI someday reveals these files, albeit with redactions, Edmonds may still claim she is telling truth. That being the case, she may have constructed the perfect con and it may well be impossible to EVER know the truth.

I wonder if Edmonds would ever accept the results of ANY investigation by any person or body that does not provide to the general public all of the FBI documents she references without a single redaction and if the investigators/panel members/whatever determine and report that she is not telling the truth.

Also, I've joined the Daily Show forum and there's already discussion there about the story. Not much, but the subject has been posted recently by others already. Interested people should go to other MSM sites with forums (that's if you consider the Daily Show MSM) and start threads on the subject there. Then bump that constantly to the top of the forum.

Hey Brad, how about I ask you to delete the #51 post, and simply insert the following....

I am a professional journalist"

Then you'd think you'd be "professionally" working to inform the public sufficiently that a hew and cry can be raised to demand investigations into the more egregious of Sibel's claims, instead of nipping at Brad's hamstrings.

"Respected media have the power to ruin lives and change public policy"

And they do so on a daily basis, if your version of "respected media" is what currently masquerades as the Fourth Estate. Who are these "respected media" that you so glowingly endorse? Name one, just one. Miller??? Novak?? Hannity? Beck?? Olbermann? Does being a well paid mouthpiece, disguising political marketing as "news" qualify you?

So, here we have Friedman, trying to investigate a story that any moral and ethical "professional journalist" should be conscience driven to investigate, if only to disprove Sibel's assertions so that the names of those accused can be cleared...

And we have you, posting comments in the back room of a blog that has very lttle exposure when compared to that of MSNBC, CNN, FOX, the NYTimes, etc., nitpicking over what is really trivia when compared to the whole body of what Sibel alleges.

Doesn't Edmonds name additional members of the conspiracy beyond Shakowsky in her AmCon interview? Was the Mayor of Chicago (I am assuming Chicago) and several unamed Illinois state legislators included in her earlier allegations?

I will admit that I still getting up to speed with Edmonds saga since she began making these claims. I will try to have a more comprehensive overview later this week.

Olin, since the claims about these conversations come from Sibel Edmonds, you would start with her to get the names of those people. Have your or Brad or anyone else asked her for those names?

Someone posting here speculated Edmonds must be professionally bound to keep the conversants secret, but I say pshaw to that. If she's not professionally bound --- or if circumstances warrant the breach --- to name the people who were the subject of gossip, surely the names of those doing the gossip are more worthy of identity.

That's not just good journalism; it's moral decency.

Some of you seem more intent will bullying anyone who dares to rain on your parade of assumptions than in finding the facts from the first-hand sources.

I don't agree with you that you're "the only ones curious" about the allegations. Why do you think I read Brad's blog and keep up with Sibel's claim?

Talking about what Sibel heard is one thing, but going over the line to claim that what she heard was verified fact just because she heard it is quite a leap in logic.

"but going over the line to claim that what she heard was verified fact just because she heard it is quite a leap in logic".
Cheeky, I never did that. Please show where anyone has done that. Maybe somebody above us has. But not recently.

Please do not insult the intelligence of readers at The Brad Blog, some of whom are attorneys.

You have not "shown" that the "allegations she [Sibel Edmonds] made about Congresswoman Schakowsky [were]...untrue on their face." You did nothing more than establish that Schakowsky's mother did not die during the relevant period of the FBI intercepts and that Ms. Edmonds erred when she interpreted "the mother" with respect to the FBI intercept as "Schakowsky's mother."

You have not denied that Schakowsky attended a funeral for someone's mother during the relevant period. You have not "specifically denied" that Schkowsky became romantically involved with a female during this same period.

Your use of the word "imaginary" does not amount to a specific denial.

Why, if there's nothing to this, are you being so obtuse?

Please note that Ms. Edmonds did not reveal this information first during The Conservative Magazine interview but, instead, did so during the course of testimony provided while under oath. She understood that if she lied about material facts during her deposition, this could constitute perjury, a felony.

That sworn testimony occurred at a deposition in which Ms. Edmonds was subject to cross-examination.

I note that the Congresswoman you work for has not stepped forward personally to say anything, let alone do so while under oath and subject to cross-examination.

Keep in mind Ms. Edmonds had no qualms about revealing the names of other members of Congress, and high level government officials, whom, per the FBI intercepts, had not only been corrupted by the Turkish lobby but had engaged in espionage and treason!

Yet, during the deposition, Edmonds testified under oath that she did not want to identify the Congresswoman because she, Edmonds, left the FBI prior to reviewing any intercepts that would reveal whether the blackmail scheme had been successful.

To me, and no doubt to most others who have objectively followed this story, the core of your argument --- that Edmonds somehow targeted Schakowsky for a smear --- is fatally flawed.

It simply makes no sense to suggest that Ms. Edmonds was out to smear the Congresswoman while, at the same time, insisting that she, Ms. Edmonds, had never seen evidence the blackmail scheme had succeeded --- especially since Ms. Edmonds named names of other members of Congress and high government officials whom she implicates in espionage and treason!

Finally, Mr. Kincaid, I would respectfully suggest that your latest diatribe does a disservice to your employer, Congresswoman Schakowsky.

I, and no doubt many others, could care less about Schakowsky's sexual preferences. Whether she engaged in an extra-marital affair with a male or a female is a matter for Schakowsky and her husband.

But, as a citizen, I and others have a right to know whether a foreign government sought to blackmail a Congresswoman on the basis of her sexual preference.

Ms. Edmonds extended an olive branch --- in essence suggesting that we move past the sexual content toward a full airing of the truly serious allegations --- espionage, treason --- again stressing she "did not accuse [Schakowsky] of any criminal or espionage-related activity."

By responding with another diatribe, Mr. Kincaid, you've caused me, and no doubt many others, to openly wonder whether Sibel Edmonds had simply not remained at the FBI long enough to learn that the blackmail scheme succeeded. You, Mr. Kincaid, have thus cast suspicion directly upon your employer.

If your employer is innocent, and I sincerely hope that she is, it is in her best interest to step forward with a truthful, point-by-point account that comes directly out of her own mouth.

As a member of Congress, who took a solemn oath to support and defend the Constitution and laws of these United States, your employer has a vested interest in pursuing the very investigation Ms. Edmonds has called for.

Anything less, will leave a cloud over Congresswoman Schakowsky and the office she holds.

It's a sad comment on our society when the implication of a lesbian affair gets more attention than that of treason. It's funny how those that she has specifically charged with treason are not making any noise that could get specifics on the record in court.

You wrote, "A respected FBI source (respected by bi-partisan Congressmembers on the record, the DoJ IG, etc.) has said the tryst was video-taped." If this FBI source told you that, why didn't you name him/her and use him/her for privileged attribution as having seen the video of the tryst? Why attribute to an apparently unpriviledged source, Edmonds?

You wrote, "Her knowledge is based, as she says, on what she heard while translating direct wiretaps. Not, as you seem to indicate in several of your notes, from someone else talking about the wiretaps." Classic straw man. I never indicated any such thing. I only point out that knowledge of a third party's conversation doesn't mean she has knowledge of whether what any third party said was true. We agree on the former, but apparently disagree on the latter.

You wrote, " .. (S)he is reporting what she heard on those tapes, and what was learned during the course of the FBI counterintel investigation, on which she worked very closely with field agents, had to be fully briefed on the case to date, the reason for the wiretaps, etc." I don't remember her stating her access was quite that in-depth, but be that as it may, I don't recall any legislator or intelligence official verifying she had a role beyond translating the wiretaps. I doubt a newbie GS-7 or so translator was "fully briefed" on all aspects of who was being wiretapped and why. I doubt they told her if any of the actors was a covert intel agent and not who they told the other party in the conversation they were. Edmonds may feel information her boss gave her made her well informed, but that doesn't make her thoroughly informed.

I don't doubt Edmonds at all in what she says she heard on the tapes. My only point is that hearing it doesn't mean the people who spoke it were speaking the truth. If you "don't have time right now to go back and offer the cites to the public officials and official reports who have shored up her credibility," you might consider doing so next time before you file your blog post stating it yourself as fact. I recall some of those corroborators, too, and I don't recall them corroborating quite the depth of Edmonds' knowledge of facts that you now claim.

You wrote, "She is an official source." No, she was a translator. And, for what, 24 weeks? The FBI never deemed her a spokewoman for their operations. Sadly, I have to point out the contrary, that the intelligence agencies gagged her, and recently did such a lackluster job of enforcing the gag in the Ohio case that her lawyer told her to go ahead. The federal gag orders aren't lifted, as far as I understand your reporting. That makes her very much an "unofficial" not "official" source.

You wrote, "As to crossing the line, did you feel similiarly when she had named Hastert, Burton, Blunt, Solarz, Lantos, Grossman, etc.?" I admit some ambivalence there. I thought Vanity Fair toed the line as far as professional journalism could in naming Hastert. I think the train has gone off the tracks since then. With those who are alleged to have committed treason, one could at least make a case for its public impact. However, the sexual allegations that Edmonds was emphatic she had no reason to believe actually rose to blackmail are clearly purient, in my opinion. What didn't happen but she says "could have" reminds me of that movie, "Majority Report." I hope we haven't come to that in America.

You wrote, " ... (I)f you believe the alleged espionage agents are going to step forward to say "Yes, I was the one who gave a hundred thousands dollars to Congressman X", I think you'll be waiting for quite a while." But, Brad, this is what I'm trying to tell you. These agents often DO tell trusted journalists such things. It takes time and responsible reporting to develop those sources and relationships.

Of those media you cited as reliable MSM coverage paralleling yours, those I've read don't state what you do as fact. They only reported what Edmonds said she transcribed in translations. They didn't go the extra step and claim what was said in those translation was necessarily fact.

But here's the biggest cringe I had in your reply, Brad. You just aren't getting it. You wrote, ".. (T)he criminals she was listening to, are not likely to come forward. She has, however, produced, by name, those she says were criminal elements in the U.S. government. ..."

Edmonds doesn't have standing to accuse any of these people with criminal acts. And she's a translator, not a criminal lawyer. She is a whistleblower reporting what she heard on tapes, and a little about her department's internal disputes over what to do about it. She doesn't know the full context, history or relationships of these players. She put the pieces she had together and believes crimes took place. But that's her perception, not a fact, yet.

No court has convicted any of these people of crimes. In fact, no grand jury has determined these perceived relationships might be criminal. I see no reporting that any investigative agency or prosecutor has prepared a criminal case to take to a grand jury.

I don't see a point in furthering the debate over your attributions. I would, however, appreciate an answer to my previous questions:

Does Edmonds know the names of all the parties in those conversations she was translating? If so, is she going to name them all, matched with the other party in their conversations?

By the way, if I remember right, there may be a salient little fact no one is considering in the Rep. Jan Schakowsky flap.

Sibel originally claimed this alleged video of a "tryst" was staged to compel the congresswoman in it to change her vote. The original reporting had Sibel saying that congresswoman did change her vote, then she backed off and said she didn't know how the congresswoman voted.

Well, I checked every member's committee votes in the two years there were Armenian genocide votes. As I recall, Schakowsky's vote didn't change. Another congresswoman's did, without explanation, however. Check and see. I could be wrong. It has been awhile.

Cheeky, your inability to answer my simple question as to whether you worked for the print media or the visual media has led me to believe you are not a professional journalist at all. Seriously. And comparing me to a birther is retarded. You don't know me from Adam, as some idiot once told me. I'd never deny American citizenship to a child born of an American citizen. You appear to me to be nothing but a sophist. Just answer my simple question, dear journalist, where did you cut your teeth?

Hey, I know everyone's exasperated here, but it really is against our commenting rules to personally attack other commenters. I don't want to have to start deleting comments all you professional and amateur journalists work so hard to produce, but, well, it's my gig here. So could everybody just try to take a few deep breaths, count to ten, soak your heads, or whatever works the best for you, before addressing each other. It's easy to express disagreement or even antipathy without calling names.

Congratulations on getting Congresswoman's Schakowsky's attention. A few points:

No need to worry about Edmonds' credibility. If 60 Minutes, Vanity Fair, and the London Times found her worth covering, you're in good company. To this list you can add high profile attorney Mark Geragos, who is putting her on the stand and is nobody's idea of a fool.

More to the point, what matters isn't what Edmonds remembers hearing a number of years ago. What matters is her saying that there are FBI agents and tapes that will confirm what she says. What's needed is for someone in government, say the Chair of the House Subcommittee on Intelligence Oversight and Investigation, to bring these agents forward and see what they have to say, and then see what's on the tapes.

Finally, you keep bringing up "Turkey" as being the perpertrator of various illegal activity. But in the 60 Minutes story, they refer to a "Turkish organization." Well, it so happens that the government of Turkey is currently in the middle of its own investigation of a "Turkish organization", called Ergenekon, which has been implicated in a number of criminal activities, including the lynching of the Turkish-Armenian journalist Hrant Dink. So Turkey is doing its job. Its our own government that is shirking its responsibility.

I'm going to take back what I said about having faith Edmonds heard what she says she heard.

As I went back to Brad's sources that allegedly back up her credibility, I find that they did not back her up on any of the accusations she recently "revealed." She really has gone off the track of her original claims about the Turkish council, her co-workers and her work environment.

I see zero substantiation of any claims she is making today. And now she keeps changing her memory of what she says she translated eight years ago on tapes of unidentified conversants talking about Schakowsky.

Stop and think about this. If you translated this allegedly vast number of years' worth of secret recordings between what now appears to be at least dozens of different people --- people you didn't actually see for yourself to corroborate whether they were the person you may have been told you were transcribing --- during 24 weeks in 2001-02, do you really think you would recall a detail of whether you transcribed "her mother" or "the mother," as Sibel now claims? Would you rely on that memory, solely, to insist that what people other than yourself talked about were true facts? What will Edmonds change next about what she thinks she heard on those tapes, now that facts have been checked and she attended no mother's funeral that year?

Edmond's memory or understanding of what she heard might be mistaken about a number of things. It's poison now to publish anything she says if you can't corroborate the facts.

By the way, Pat Buchanan's guy claimed it would be impossible to have checked details of Edmonds' claim. I could have had the facts about a Schakowsky funeral and townhouse verified-- or in this case discredited --- within two minutes, and so could Brad have done so before publishing claims based solely on one woman's memory of second-hand information, at best.

That's what old-school professional journalists do before publishing defamatory allegations.

The MSM today is deeply flawed and disappointing because it has strayed from those ethical standards, but new media won't help media consumers by practicing even more reckless standards and neglect of attributions.

Brad, it doesn't matter ethically if it's a sitting member of Congress or a John Doe. Unless you've checked Edmond's information with the first-hand people she believes she heard say it on the wiretaps, you should be attributing every sentence to Edmonds, if you publish her memories at all.

Edmonds didn't give details in the past. Now that she is, they are blowing up in her face, so far. That hurts her credibility on other claims that she may have understood correctly.

Ask yourself, what if your single source for this story turns out to be as crazy as Orlie Taitz? What will your credibility be then, Brad?

There's an old saying in journalism: "If your mother tells you she loves you, check it out."

@ cheeky, I've read your comment 77 (again that is; I only skipped through it last night) and have to admit it is your most even handed comment yet. However, as a pro journalist perhaps you could do the dirty work to track down information relating to the actual deposition Sibel gave, as that is at least something factual in that it actually occurred. What coverage beyond the American Conservative has it received? And really, does Orlie Taitz also think you are a Turkish journalist? I mean really, where did that little jab come from?

One more thing @ Cheeky I never said you were not also curious. I did use the inclusive "we". That would include you. I like you, because you are a skeptic. However, for the record, I don't trust skeptics. And I don't take cynics seriously. Also I'm not even an amateur journalist. I'm at best a commenter on a blog which makes me little more than an electronic blip.

While it appears, Cheeky, that you enjoy playing the Devil's advocate, your uninformed advocacy is not helpful for those who are interested in truth.

For example, you wrote:

The original reporting had Sibel saying that congresswoman did change her vote, then she backed off and said she didn't know how the congresswoman voted.

Fact:

It is unclear what you mean by "original reporting." If you are referring to Brad Friedman's "coverage," you would do well to actually read Brad's pieces which linked to the transcripts of Sibel Edmonds' sworn testimony.

Had you done so, you would find that contrary to what you wrote, Sibel Edmonds asserted then, as she does now, that while the aim of the Turkish lobby often entailed various illegal means for influencing Congressional votes, she could not say whether the blackmail scheme directed at what then remained an unnamed Congresswoman (only lately identified as Schakowsky) had succeeded.

Unlike those who have followed this story, who are appropriately concerned about the gravity of allegations entailing corruption, bribery, extortion, espionage and treason at the highest levels of the U.S. government, it is obvious that you, Cheeky, have come onto the blog with an agenda --- a desire to discredit anything Sibel Edmonds has to say even if it means your making up something like your "original reporting" remark.

Indeed, the best that can be said of your many rants is that you apparently enjoy erecting and demolishing a series of straw men.

For example, you state:

Edmonds doesn't have standing to accuse any of these people with criminal acts. And she's a translator, not a criminal lawyer. She is a whistleblower reporting what she heard on tapes...

First, "standing" is a legal concept used by our courts to determine whether a party has a right to initiate a law suit. For example, ordinarily only some one who is injured as a result of a tort of another has a right to sue. The legal concept of "standing" has absolutely no connection to what has occurred here.

Second: The question of guilt or innocence is not a pre-requisite to the question of whether allegations made by a government whistle blower are newsworthy. If that were the case, the media (MSM & alternative) would never report on an indictment unless and until a conviction was secured.

Third: Neither Sibel Edmonds nor Brad Friedman have asserted that they know, for a fact, that any of the individuals involved in this scandal are, in fact, guilty. What Ms. Edmonds did was to expose what she learned from the FBI intercepts which raises a serious questions as to whether these individuals engaged in corruption, bribery, espionage and treason.

Fourth, it is no more inappropriate for Brad Friedman to "cover" the revelations about these intercepts than it is for the MSM to cover the recent story about a previously undisclosed Iranian uranium enrichment site. The fact that the U.S. has not "proven" that Iran has used the hidden sites to produced weapons grade, enriched uranium does not mean that the latter story is not newsworthy.

Alright I'm bored and was reading through comment 83. I'm just wondering where the facts were checked that she attended no mothers funeral. I missed that part of the discussion. Are you speaking hypothetically?

Yeah, sorry Olin, but I'm not that into you. I couldn't care less about your analysis of me.

Brad, in rereading your long rebuttal to me, I think I may have misunderstood what you believe Edmonds claims to have heard. It now seems to me that you think Edmonds claims to have translated conversations in which Hastert, Schakowsky, etc. were the conversants.

I did not make that assumption at any time, because unless all these members of Congress, State Department, etc. speak fluent Turkish, it makes no sense that she'd be translating their conversations.

I'm commenting on the assumption that she was not listening to first-hand conversations from any American, but rather chatter amongst Turks or other Turkish native speakers.

Please verify if there's any evidence these American officials were speaking Turkish, or if she is confirmed to have had an intelligence status other than her job title "linguist" that would have enabled her to listen to covert conversations recorded in English. That would change my position, somewhat.

Canning wrote, "Neither Sibel Edmonds nor Brad Friedman have asserted that they know, for a fact, that any of the individuals involved in this scandal are, in fact, guilty."

Those who refer to these American officials as "criminals" or allege them to conspire in "criminal activity" do, exacty, falsely claim a court have found guilt. Crime is not an opinion. Events either fulfill criminal statute or they do not.

Anyway, did you check the actual voting record of named people you claim Sibel knows for a true fact were compromised by these activities? In particular, did you check the women members of Congress who were there for both committee votes in the about six-year span between the two?

Because ... if someone didn't change their vote, it's hard to claim they were criminally compromised, isn't it?

So, it is your opinion that further investigation is not necessary because none of Sibel's assertions have been proven? Yes, questions, that make a lot of sense; To an idiot, perhaps.

Please show me where I, Dan Kervick, Brad Friedman, Philip Giraldi, the American Conservative, Harpers, or any other entity claims that all of Sibel's assertions are the truth.

The common reaction to Sibel's accusations is the feeling that there is enough smoke to warrant looking for fire.

You load your longwinded essays up with the assertion that everyone is claiming Sibel speaks the gospel. That is a straw argument; in short, bullshit.

You claim to be doing, finally, the research to justify your position. And that is exactly what you are doing, research, TO JUSTIFY FOREGONE CONCLUSIONS on your part. You could just as easily find credible and tenable aspects of Sibel's accusations, but those aspects of her story don't interest you, because it is not about the truth to you, it is about winning an intellectual duel. The pleasure you find in playing mind games to win an argument over-rides any moral conviction that should fuel debate and argument.

Almost to a person, everyone commenting on this issue has expressed a desire to see further investigation and media exposure of Sibel's claims. You have twisted the whole thing to implying that all of us have argued that Sibel has proven her assertions and accusations. You had to do that, because common sense cries out for further investigation, and you could not frame a logical argument against further investigation.

Hence your army of strawmen, and questions being posed that you KNOW none of us are in the position to answer, precisely because of the lack of investigation that we argue should be conducted. This is a very disingenuous manner of debate, and I hope you are not of the mistaken opinion that we are unable to see through it.

As an addendum to my last comment, there are portions of Cheeky's posts which reflect either ignorance or intellectual dishonesty.

Cheeky at one point describes Edmonds' revelations as defamatory and even goes so far as to attempt to compare Edmonds to Orly Taitz, the slime-ball who presented an obvious forgery as if it were an authentic birth certificate.

As defined by Black's Law Dictionary:

Defamation. The taking of one's reputation. The offense of injuring a person's character, fame or reputation by false and malicious statements.

Where the use of the word "defamatory" and the comparison to Taitz would suggest that Cheeky knows that the Edmonds' allegations are false, Cheeky concedes otherwise.

I don't doubt Edmonds at all in what she says she heard on the tapes. My only point is that hearing it doesn't mean the people who spoke it were speaking the truth.

Since Cheeky concedes that Edmonds may have accurately reported what she heard on the tapes, it is Cheeky who has defamed Edmonds by attempting to describe Edmonds' truthful account as vicious defamation of the Orly Taitz variety.

The "doesn't mean the people who spoke it were speaking the truth" is especially amusing. At this point we do not have the content of the FBI tapes or any FBI summaries of them. All we know is that these are FBI intercepts that potentially captured the words of the very individuals (members of Congress & high-level US government officials) whom Edmonds' testimony implicates in corruption, bribery, espionage and treason.

Are you suggesting, Cheeky, that these members of Congress and high placed U.S. government officials may have been lying when they uttered words that were picked up by the FBI intercepts?

Cheeky asks: "Anyway, did you check the actual voting record of named people you claim Sibel knows for a true fact were compromised by these activities?"

Which "named people" and which "changed votes" are you talking about?

My recollection of the 241 page deposition transcript is that it contained specific references to specific members of Congress pertaining to their vote on the Armenian genocide issue, but I'm not about to go searching that transcript and pouring through the Congressional record just to satisfy the whims of a passive/aggressive obstructionist who doesn't even have the courage to use his/her real name when posting this blog.

I will provide you with precise testimony which shows that you made up "original reporting had Sibel saying that congresswoman did change her vote" from whole cloth.

Here's what Sibel's sworn testimony actually said:

I don't know if she did anything illegal afterwards. ... the Turkish entities, wanted both congressional related favoritism from her, but also her husband was in a high position in the area in the state she was elected from, and these Turkish entities ran certain illegal operations, and they wanted her husband's help. But I don't know if she provided them with those.

At this point, Cheeky, it is your credibility which is at issue, not Ms. Edmonds'.

PissedOff "Orlie" American, sorry to disillusion you. I only now clicked on your creation at Steve Clemons' blog to see what you are talking about.

Of course, two individuals couldn't possibly come to similar conclusions because they actually think logically. The only explanation can be that the person posting as "question" and I are one and the same person trying to deceive PO "Orlie" American.

It is clear in you illogic here that you will announce I am one and the same if I do not deny it, so, no POOA, I am not the poster known as question, nor have I ever met him or her, nor was I privy to his/her comments before making mine.

To answer your legitimate question, POOA, what I'm saying is simply that people publishing Edmonds' defamatory claims against individuals should verify the facts before -- BEFORE -- publishing the accusations. Their attributions should be painfully pointed, as the Vanity Fair did in addressing the Hastert claim.

What I'm further saying is that it's not that hard to do. What I'm further saying is that if media generally considered respected media haven't published it, it could be because they did check the facts and her facts didn't check out (imagine that!), as they now are famously not checking on in the Schakowsky allegation.

There isn't enough meat here to even ask an editor to consider spending the time with it. Brad is on the story, so I'd suggest he start with some FOIA requests on those FBI files Edmonds names by alleged document number.

If you're serious about getting to the bottom of this, why haven't you spent your energy doing that, instead of ranting here about the neglect of MSM? A FOIA costs only the price of the photocopy, and often not even that. Go for it, POOA.

Canning: "All we know is that these are FBI intercepts that potentially captured the words of the very individuals (members of Congress & high-level US government officials) whom Edmonds' testimony implicates in corruption, bribery, espionage and treason."

... Not unless all those members of Congress spoke clandestinely in fluent Turkish for Edmonds to translate. Why are you assuming she heard this out of the Americans' mouths, and that she was able to confirm who she was told she was listening to on an audio tape? Why assume that?!

But I doubt that anything rational is going to get through to the few bulldogs here. I look forward to reading what Brad really has to back up his advocacy of Edmonds' assertions as fact. I didn't come here to be defiant or inciteful, but the lack of open-minded debate here makes it seem so.

POOA, you say the person posting as question and I write similarly in proper English? NO!?

But you told me last night that my English is weird and so I am surely a Turkish journalist trying to fool you here ... fool you into ... um ... well, I don't know what purpose I would have for these attempts to deceive you.

This is becoming amusing, so please do go on. What is my ulterior motive to be here and why am I denying your claim that I am also the poster named question?

"But you told me last night that my English is weird and so I am surely a Turkish journalist trying to fool you here"

And you know full well that I did not make that statement, and am not the same poster as "John Olin"; as Brad or "agent 99" should be able to verify, and have my full permission to do.

Of course, it would be interesting to have Steve and Brad compare notes to check my intuition as to my assertion, but I doubt, considering Steve's efforts to distance himself from this issue, that he would cooperate. Perhaps Brad could make an off the record inquiry to Steve, just out of curiousity.

But really, I entertain no hopes of such an exchange ocurring, considering the admittedly petty nature of this kind of argument. The only thing I can think of that would be more petty and shallow, would be the implementation of such a ruse. And we already know my opinion of whether or not that is occurring.

Just as you spent months attempting to disingenuously poke holes into the Clint Curtis story years ago, offing doing so with inaccurate and absurd charges, you seem rather keen to do the same with Edmonds' story suddenly. Very interesting, if predictable.

While being skeptical about such allegations, be they from whistleblowers like Curtis or Edmonds, is always appropriate, in order to get to the bottom of such matters, your interests seem rather different than that, as illustrated by your comment here:

"Edmonds may still claim she is telling truth. That being the case, she may have constructed the perfect con and it may well be impossible to EVER know the truth."

Skeptically and dispassionately questioning and investigating is one thing, attempts at discrediting, as you seem to be doing again here (as with the Curtis story) are another. For a start, it difficult to discern just what motivation Edmonds (or Curtis, for that matter) would have in pulling off a "con", perfect or otherwise.

Edmonds allegations have resulted in the loss of her job, extraordinary costs, both personal and financial, in taking her case all the way to the Supreme Court, and seem to cut across both major parties, such that it would be very difficult to call her a political opportunist or operative for someone.

If you would like to make a credible case that it's a "con", you'd also need to begin building a credible motivation for such a years-long "con", at such an extraodinary cost.

Until then, from my own observation, it seems that you are the one laying out the "con" at this point, just as you have done for years on the Clint Curtis case. Good luck with that. At least both she and Curtis (and hell, myself to that matter), had the courage to put their names behind their public claims and reporting. Your predictable spitballs, hurled from behind the cowardly shadows of anonymity continue to both miss their target and fail to impress. But perhaps that's just from my perspective.

Canning and POOA, why are you hiding what Mr. Edmonds does for a living? Why?! WHY!?!? Wait, you think alike, so you must be ... the same person! Yeah, that's the ticket!!

Seriously, does Mr. Edmonds work in government? Does he have security clearance? That information would tell me something about the likelihood that Sibel was privy to some of the inside information some sites, including this one, claim she was privy to.

Sibel's multiple infractions for having classified U.S. material on her home computer is somewhat incongruous with the image we're led to have of her being some deep insider with detailed knowledge beyond her transcriptions as a run-of-the-mill linguist. It also makes me wonder if she continues to have such information or if she is truly speaking from memory of what she translated eight years ago, which could be faulty for even the most brilliant person.

An insider knows better than to have classified material on their home computer. She's lucky she didn't go to jail for those infractions. I'm guessing she didn't because she was just a lowly, short-term contract linguist and nothing more.

That's not to say she might not have stumbled on something significant. It's worth checking out ... but checking out before defaming individuals. Surely, Canning, since you seem to imply you are a lawyer, you can appreciate that boundary, can't you?

I much appreciate the healthy discussion, debate, skepticism (and even criticism) etc. in this thread. I regret that I'm on the road, at a conference, and largely off the grid for the entirety of the day, as noted last night, and thus unable to participate in the blow-by-blow as much as I'd otherwise enjoy.

Will do my best, momentarily, to respond to some of your key points, concerns, in any case, in as much as I can in the sorry few minutes before I've got to get back off line for (likely) the bulk of the day/night today... So again, I offer my apologies in advance for responding in a more terse, less specific way than I would normally prefer. But there has been a LOT posted here, since I was last able to be online, and I've got just a very limited time to respond to as much of it as possible.

Olin #49 (and Brad too, not because I think you think I'm Shakowsky, but because my answer is relevant to some issues you raised in response to my last comment),

Hahaha! I got a good laugh. From what I've read about the congresswoman, I doubt she would deign to post here, even under a pseudonym. I've been "Lora" on the web for years. Sorry, it's just me.

I do maintain that without the forbidden sex angle, this story would be a non-story. If we just heard that a member of Congress had been set-up for blackmail purposes but may never have been blackmailed.....ok....yes, that's important..., but what about this from the American Conservative link? (I picked it simply because it was very early in the articl and I read it first)

GIRALDI: And Grossman received money as a result. In one case, you said that a State Department colleague went to pick up a bag of money…

EDMONDS: $14,000

GIRALDI: What kind of information was Grossman giving to foreign countries? Did he give assistance to foreign individuals penetrating U.S. government labs and defense installations as has been reported? It’s also been reported that he was the conduit to a group of congressmen who become, in a sense, the targets to be recruited as “agents of influence.”

EDMONDS: Yes, that’s correct.

OK, the allegation is that Grossman received money for assistance in penetration of labs and defense installations.

Why doesn't Sibel or anyone else ask Grossman if that was true?

Seems to me a damn sight more alarming and important than a potential blackmail scheme.

Seriously, do you think there is a member of Congress, Democrat or Republican, who would give any credence to allegations of lesbian sex whether true or not? Unless there was ironclad proof?

I also agree wiht Vinny that if Schakowski is correct (and she is as credible as Sibel at this point) about Sibel's errors in fact: death of mother in error, townhouse not owned by Schakowski) then this does seriously hurt Sibel's credibility.

Sibel has taken ownership of the information she overheard, for some reason. She could have said, "look, that is what I heard and translated. I've no idea if it's true." Instead she's pushing Schakowski to confirm or deny something that Schakowski ultimately can't know is true --- the issue being, as Brad said, not whether she had a lesbian affair or not, but whether she was videotaped.

She wouldn't be in a position to know, anymore than we would. Unless the videotape exists, which Schakowski can't confirm or deny, it boils down to whether or not she had sex. Even if she DID have sex with someone in a shadowy townhouse, there is no proof that her partner was a Turkish operative, or that the "tryst" was videotaped.

Sorry, but BECAUSE sex connected with politicians is such a hot topic in this country it could be mortally damamging to a politician's career. AND, especially BECAUSE whether or not she had sex does NOT tell us whether or not she was videotaped, or blackmailed, or leaned on, then, there really isn't any good reason to pursue it that I can see.

Come on, what can she say? IF true, and even if, beyond my wildest imagination, Schakowsky says, Yes, yes, I had sex with a woman in some townhouse after some funeral, then what? A name? an investigation as to whether Schakowski's lover was a Turkish operative? Do you really think we'll find that out? Even so, where's the videotape? Without that, the whole thing is dead in the water. I think we have better things to do and more harm than good would come out of pursuing it.

A) The subject should be dropped, and

B) As a matter of course we should denounce any and all harrassment of public figures because of their private sex lives (Brad - I didn't mean that we were harrassing the Congresswoman here because of sex).

Yes---we should even defend slimy Republicans who happen to like hanging out in men's rooms and rubbing feet with people in the next stall!

And THEN, what ABOUT Grossman, and the others, who are alleged to have actually done some real harm and taken bribes!

"Yipes" indeed! With the above "disclaimer/explanation" in mind (concerning my too-limited time today), let's try to hit some of your key points, moving targets as they seem to be, over multiple changing outlooks, across several different comments you posted above over the course of the last 12 hours or so...

You wrote, "A respected FBI source (respected by bi-partisan Congressmembers on the record, the DoJ IG, etc.) has said the tryst was video-taped." If this FBI source told you that, why didn't you name him/her and use him/her for privileged attribution as having seen the video of the tryst? Why attribute to an apparently unpriviledged source, Edmonds?

Huh? The "respected FBI source", in this case, is attributed. As Edmonds! I'm unaware of anybody at the FBI having seen the video in question, one way or another. Never claimed I had. So not sure what you're referring to there, unless you simply misunderstood my comment.

You wrote, "Her knowledge is based, as she says, on what she heard while translating direct wiretaps. Not, as you seem to indicate in several of your notes, from someone else talking about the wiretaps." Classic straw man. I never indicated any such thing.

Well, you did. Unless I misunderstood your comments. You *seemed* to be indicating that Edmonds was translating someone else interviewed by the FBI, who had made these claims, and thus they came third hand, and she hadn't announced who the person was who was making the claims. My understanding is that she listened to coversations BY the folks who were doing, or had done, the video-taping, talking directly about the taping.

So, no, that wasn't a "classic straw man". That was my understand of what the hell you were talking about, which seems to have now changed across several different comments here (which I'll do my best to keep up with, and respond to, given the time I have to do so today).

I only point out that knowledge of a third party's conversation doesn't mean she has knowledge of whether what any third party said was true.

I believe I agree with you, and don't believe I've averred differently. At least not on purpose.

You wrote, " .. (S)he is reporting what she heard on those tapes, and what was learned during the course of the FBI counterintel investigation, on which she worked very closely with field agents, had to be fully briefed on the case to date, the reason for the wiretaps, etc." I don't remember her stating her access was quite that in-depth, but be that as it may, I don't recall any legislator or intelligence official verifying she had a role beyond translating the wiretaps. I doubt a newbie GS-7 or so translator was "fully briefed" on all aspects of who was being wiretapped and why.

I have had many, in-depth conversations with her over the years. As have others who have covered her story. Much of that information was reported, much of it was not, over the years. Nonetheless, now you begin to bring up fine questions that need to be reported and/or re-reported, and about which I'd invite you, a self-described "professional journalist", to interview her, investigate, and publiclly report, as would seem to be your job.

You may (or may not) recall the exclusive we posted here over a year ago, that she was, at the time, willing to break her gag order to tell the entire story to any legtimate U.S. news organization, after which Daniel Ellsberg (the legendary "Pentagon Papers" whistleblower), opined to both me, and then in a BRAD BLOG guest editorial, that he believed her charges were "more explosive than the 'Pentagon Papers'". Yet none of that seemed to pique your interest, or that of the rest of the U.S. media (presuming you are actually part of them).

Now you're interested. Good. Hope you'll consider doing your job, getting to the bottom of all of this, asking her the difficult questions you propose anonymously here in BRAD BLOG comments, and help the public get to the bottom of this story.

You may learn, as I did, that her role was more important to the investigation, than simply serving as a translator of documents/tapes, that she was tasked with helping to make sense of them, helping to review what was important, and what was just chatter, and what needed to be furthered pursued by field agents etc. (in fact, the original allegations concerning her co-worker at the FBI had to do with that woman changing reviews, summaries, translations, to misdirect aspects of the investigation). FBI linguists/translators in the counterintel division, as I've come to learn via my reporting over the years, are not simply translators in the sense of what you might see at a White House briefing between the President and a foreign leader, for example, merely translating one language to another for the recipient to then understand, respond to.

Hope that makes some sense and sheds some light for you.

I don't doubt Edmonds at all in what she says she heard on the tapes. My only point is that hearing it doesn't mean the people who spoke it were speaking the truth.

I concur. Don't believe I've suggested/reported any differently.

If you "don't have time right now to go back and offer the cites to the public officials and official reports who have shored up her credibility," you might consider doing so next time before you file your blog post stating it yourself as fact.

I already did so. Time and again, in fact, over just the last 4 or 5 or 6 stories I've filed on Edmonds' allegations. I meant, in my comment, that I didn't have the time to re-cite them in comments there. There are many such cites, repeatedly linked in my articles (such that it, no doubt, bores the hell out of readers already familiar with her story). Hopefully you've begun to click on some of those links I've already posted, time and again, and have found some separately on your own additionally.

I recall some of those corroborators, too, and I don't recall them corroborating quite the depth of Edmonds' knowledge of facts that you now claim.

I wrote that the public officials and official reports have "shored up her credibility" in my quick blog comment to you. And yes, when Sen. Chuck Grassley, ranking (or Sr.) member of the U.S. Senate Judiciary Comm, by way of one example, tells 60 Minutes: "Absolutely, she's credible...And the reason I feel she's very credible is because people within the FBI have corroborated a lot of her story.", yes, I take that as a senior official having "shored up her credibility". Not sure how you'd read that otherwise.

You wrote, "She is an official source." No, she was a translator. And, for what, 24 weeks? The FBI never deemed her a spokewoman for their operations.

And now I have to question whether you're being disingenuous or not in your comments here. I'll presume that's not the case, and that you are a serious, dispassionate skeptic/questioner. I hope I'm not wasting my time with someone who is not.

I meant she was "an official source", in my comment short-hand, in that she was an FBI official and the source of these allegations. I hope you understand better now what I was referring to.

Sadly, I have to point out the contrary, that the intelligence agencies gagged her, and recently did such a lackluster job of enforcing the gag in the Ohio case that her lawyer told her to go ahead. The federal gag orders aren't lifted, as far as I understand your reporting. That makes her very much an "unofficial" not "official" source.

Sadly, I have to point out that you don't seem to understand the key basics of the story. The intelligence agencies didn't gag her, the Justice Dept. did. Whether at the request of intel agencies, we don't general know, since the arguments made by the Gov (DoJ) for the invocation of the "State Secrets Privilege" were made out of public view. Out of the view even of Edmonds and her own attorney who had to leave the courtroom when the DoJ made its arguments to the various judges presiding over the cases in which SSP was invoked.

The gag order that came from the SSP is not portable, or so her attorneys from the National Whistleblower Center have argued, in that they apply only to the specific legal cases in which the SSP was invoked.

As to the intel agencies (who didn't invoke the gag in the first place) having done a "lackluster job of enforcing the gag", the DoJ was informed about Edmonds intentions to testify, and asked if they chose to re-invoke SSP. The attorneys at the Obama DoJ, unlike the Bush DoJ, chose not to. Thus, she seems to believe that she has no more "gag order", other than the requirements of various contractual FBI non-disclosure issues, which she has said she has not violated. FWIW.

With those who are alleged to have committed treason, one could at least make a case for its public impact. However, the sexual allegations that Edmonds was emphatic she had no reason to believe actually rose to blackmail are clearly purient, in my opinion. What didn't happen but she says "could have" reminds me of that movie, "Majority Report." I hope we haven't come to that in America.

Here you have mischaracterized what she has said about the sexual allegations. In short, she has said she left the FBI before knowing, one way or another, whether they rose to blackmail. Not that she "had no reason to believe" it did.

FTR, I too am/was ambivelent about exposing the name of the Congresswoman, and did not do so myself, though I was familiar with her claims along these lines, until she decided --- for whatever reason --- to do so on her own, on the public record (in the AmCon interview). At which time, I reported that she did, and tried my best (and still am) to allow both the "accused" to respond, and to help determine what actually happened, or didn't, in this case.

It'd be swell if, as a "professional journalist", you considered doing the same for your readers and for the public as a whole, rather than spending so much of your time (and mine), taking (sometimes misinformed) potshots behind a pseudonym here in comments at The BRAD BLOG. But that's just a side opinion of mine, I guess.

In the meantime, I believe the matter of a senior Congress member, with a key role on a House Comm. which would otherwise look into the broad charges that Edmonds has made concerning National Security, may herself be compromised, and thus kept from looking into them, is a very serious concern, and much more than merely "prurient" as you flippantly (and I believe, completely inaccurately and/or naively) describe it.

You wrote, " ... (I)f you believe the alleged espionage agents are going to step forward to say "Yes, I was the one who gave a hundred thousands dollars to Congressman X", I think you'll be waiting for quite a while." But, Brad, this is what I'm trying to tell you. These agents often DO tell trusted journalists such things. It takes time and responsible reporting to develop those sources and relationships.

Again, you seem to misunderstaned. I'll couresouly blame myself for my previous, necessarily terse response. I was referring to the "agents" who carried out the alleged "espionage" (Eg. the Turkish woman who, Edmonds says, lured Schakowsky into an affair and/or those who are said to have bugged the house, recorded the tryst, etc.)

Those folks would have been breaking serious laws in having done so, and are not likely to step forward to say "Yes, I did it! I'm here to tell you Edmonds is correct and credible on this point! As well as on the bribes and blackmail that we committed with other members of Congress, and State and Def. Dept officials!"

Of those media you cited as reliable MSM coverage paralleling yours, those I've read don't state what you do as fact. They only reported what Edmonds said she transcribed in translations. They didn't go the extra step and claim what was said in those translation was necessarily fact.

I don't believe I did either.

Does Edmonds know the names of all the parties in those conversations she was translating? If so, is she going to name them all, matched with the other party in their conversations?

I believe the answer to the first is yes, she knows them, or some of them. I don't know whether she intends to name them or not. I hope she does. And I hope you'll encourage her to do so. And I even hope you call her, interview her, and try to find out. IE, do your job, as the "professional journalist" you claim to be. Sounds like you have very many good questions that you should be asking her, not necessarily me, though I'll be happy to help where I can, if you wish to contact me via email, rather than here where you seem to be spending quite a bit of time (mine and yours) speculating, often incorrectly, about these matters.

I could have had the facts about a Schakowsky funeral and townhouse verified-- or in this case discredited --- within two minutes, and so could Brad have done so before publishing claims based solely on one woman's memory of second-hand information, at best.

That's what old-school professional journalists do before publishing defamatory allegations.

As previously noted, I consider AmCon a legtimate publication. They are the ones who reported Edmonds claims on these points. Though they were also made, without identifying the Congresswoman by name, during a recent sworn --- under penalty of perjury --- public deposition.

If you don't find that newsworthy, that's fine. I did. So I reported that it happened, and offered information (second hand via another source, the Congresswoman's spokesperson) who says it didn't happen, along with his additional (also unverified information) about how he believes the claims are inaccurate.

But you are one of those "old-school professional journalists", as you tell us, but have yet to do what you claim that such journalists do.

For the record, I did attempt to allow Schakowsky's office multiple opportunities to respond before I reported on the AmCon article, as I believed it was the right thing to do. And, for whatever reason, they did not take the opportunity to do so until after the article was published.

The MSM today is deeply flawed and disappointing because it has strayed from those ethical standards, but new media won't help media consumers by practicing even more reckless standards and neglect of attributions.

I don't believe I was "more reckless". In fact, I believe I was rather conscientous, professional and very fair in the way I did so. If you disagree, that's fine, and your opinion. But I will respectfully disagree with it here.

I'll also add that I believe I'm doing my (unpaid) job, whereas it doesn't seem to me that you are doing your (presumably paid) job, in the bargain! Unless your job entails spending time posting anonymous blog comments, rather than investigating and reporting. You know who I am, so your opinion is as valid as mine on what I do. I can only speculate on what you do, based on your unverified, anonymous claims of being a "professional journalist".

Unless you've checked Edmond's information with the first-hand people she believes she heard say it on the wiretaps, you should be attributing every sentence to Edmonds, if you publish her memories at all.

Lora, you well state this aspect that is the crux of it, to me: "Sibel has taken ownership of the information she overheard, for some reason. She could have said, "look, that is what I heard and translated. I've no idea if it's true.""

I, too, wonder why she takes ownership of the conversations between Turkish operatives she translated, and why some nontraditional media go along with that. These types of operatives generally are notorious liars.

She jumps from her intriques being designed to get American nuclear secrets to babbling about blackmail to sway an impotent House resolution calling for the Turkish government to admit Armenian genocide three or more generations ago ... as if these operatives' goals were of some equal relevance.

The more attention Edmonds claims get, the more they just don't add up.

Brad, in rereading your long rebuttal to me, I think I may have misunderstood what you believe Edmonds claims to have heard. It now seems to me that you think Edmonds claims to have translated conversations in which Hastert, Schakowsky, etc. were the conversants.

I did not make that assumption at any time, because unless all these members of Congress, State Department, etc. speak fluent Turkish, it makes no sense that she'd be translating their conversations.

I didn't not offer my opinion on that one way or another in this thread. Though you may note in the AmCon article that Edmonds speaks about certain congressional members becoming targets and wiretaped themselves via FISA, and the intercine concerns that had raised.

You may also wish to know, since you seem to have been either too lazy or too disintered to find out for yourself up until now, she listened to wiretaps in the Turkish language division, as part of the Turkish investigation. This means that some conversations were in Turkish, in other languages (including English), and sometimes mixed with all of the above.

I'm commenting on the assumption that she was not listening to first-hand conversations from any American, but rather chatter amongst Turks or other Turkish native speakers.

Perhaps your commenting on far too many "assumptions", rather than the real, first hand, "old-school" journalism you have repeatedly (and perhaps even ironically) criticized me for not carrying out.

(BTW, you also may wish to read her actual under-oath 8/8/09 deposition, in which she discusses other elements of her work at FBI. Eg., her being called in to help with direct interrogations, etc. Might help your comments here to be a better informed. But, unlike my own, since yours are posted here anonymously, I guess it's not all that important to you, perhaps?)

Those who refer to these American officials as "criminals" or allege them to conspire in "criminal activity" do, exacty, falsely claim a court have found guilt. Crime is not an opinion. Events either fulfill criminal statute or they do not.

Wow, speaking of changing ones story...Anyway, no. If I see somewhat murder someone, it is perfectly appropriate for me to allege that they committed a crime. Whether they are captured and/or found guilty under a criminal statute, has nothing to do with my opinion they committed a crime.

Eg., Ann Coulter committed third-degree felony voter registration fraud, and first-degree misdemeanor voter fraud in Palm Beach County, FL. I have the documents, posted over several years of my investigation there (http://www.bradblog.com/CoulterFraud) to prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt. That she was never tried and found guilty in a court of law for it, have nothing to do with the fact that she, without question, committed those crimes.

Because ... if someone didn't change their vote, it's hard to claim they were criminally compromised, isn't it?

Brad, are you freakin' kidding me? Your "trusted FBI source" refers to the woman the FBI fired and still officially has gagged from speaking? What planet do you live on?! She's YOUR trusted source, but not the FBI's.

And your readers are supposed to understand all your attributions to "official FBI" information is soley Edmonds' unofficial claims about what she says she believes she heard Turkish operatives say on tapes during her short 24 weeks at the FBI before SHE WAS FIRED?

Do you ever read your own links? Those that you say link to support of her claims from all these esteemed people in Congress and the OIG are merely recitations of facts regarding her claims circa 2002, which have virtually no semblence to the wild and diverse claims she is making today.

Wow. I wasn't expecting this level of self-delusion. Wow. I just don't see any red meat here for any legitimate professional journalist to latch onto. My advice: FOIA the FBI documents and save your own neck until you have some verifiable facts to report.

What I'm further saying is that if media generally considered respected media haven't published it, it could be because they did check the facts and her facts didn't check out (imagine that!), as they now are famously not checking on in the Schakowsky allegation.

a) And you know they are "famously not checking on in the Schakowsky allegation", how, Cheeky?

b) "generally respect media" also hadn't published the fact that Bush Admin claims of knowing where the WMD were entirely bullshit. Therefore, they actually did know where the WMD were??

c) Your once respected claims about being a disinterested "profesional journalist" have fallen quickly into disrepute, amigo.

There isn't enough meat here to even ask an editor to consider spending the time with it.

...And now even quicker into disrepute.

Brad is on the story, so I'd suggest he start with some FOIA requests on those FBI files Edmonds names by alleged document number.

If you bothered to learn about the story, you'd know that UK Sunday Times already did that, and were told the FBI files, identified by number by Edmonds, said the files didn't exist. Only to be countered by evidence in a document showing that they did.

So either the FBI lied about it, or they destroyed the files so their claims now that the documents don't exist is accurate, even as its misleading. Since evidence allegedly shows the FBI is lying, are you prepared then, as you seem to be with Edmonds, to declare that none of the FBI's claims on these matters are to be trusted?

If you're serious about getting to the bottom of this, why haven't you spent your energy doing that, instead of ranting here about the neglect of MSM?

And now I *really* have to vacate this hotel and internet connection, so incredibly quickly...

"Cheeky" @ 113 said:

Brad, are you freakin' kidding me? Your "trusted FBI source" refers to the woman the FBI fired and still officially has gagged from speaking? What planet do you live on?! She's YOUR trusted source, but not the FBI's.

She is trusted by Senators, the IG's office, other whistleblowers, other FBI officers and other intelligence officers. I don't believe I suggested she was spokesperson for the FBI, which begs the question about your own home planet.

Further, I believe she was illegally fired, according to the evidence I've seen, but disallowed to make that case due to the Bush Administration draconian, and heretofore unprecedented use of the SSP on her, such that she was not allowed even to make her case to that end in a court of law.

And your readers are supposed to understand all your attributions to "official FBI" information is soley Edmonds' unofficial claims about what she says she believes she heard Turkish operatives say on tapes during her short 24 weeks at the FBI before SHE WAS FIRED?

Wow. Speaking of strawman arguments! Yes, she was an official at the FBI. If you are interested in doing little more than trying to twist what I've rather clearly spelled out over years of reporting on this case, I'll leave that to you. I suspect the disingenousness of your arguments have, by now, become rather transparent to anybody still bothering to read along.

You blew it, amigo.

Do you ever read your own links? Those that you say link to support of her claims from all these esteemed people in Congress and the OIG are merely recitations of facts regarding her claims circa 2002, which have virtually no semblence to the wild and diverse claims she is making today.

Actually, not entirely true. But as I'm short on time now (very), I'll point out that the references you cite above were, indeed, made in regard to the original allegations. The others were blocked by the Bush Admin's two-time invocation of SSP, and have only therefore, become fully public within the last month since her deposition (though a number of them have leaked out in various ways over the years at other publications, etc., and have never been disproven to my knowledge).

Wow. I wasn't expecting this level of self-delusion. Wow.

I share your amazement, my friend. You have really gone off the rails here, eh?

I just don't see any red meat here for any legitimate professional journalist to latch onto.

Geez (shaking head). Any idiot can see Edmonds' "charges" are indeed "explosive."

But her personal "charges" also, as anyone should be able to see clearly, are entirely meaningless if she and those who report on her don't name the people she was transcribing and trace that "explosive" information back to see if any of it accurately describes reality or if alleged events may have been ficticious ploys by Turks operating in either legit or illegit covert operations.

You admit you know of no source who saw whether a tryst tape even exists, and yet you feel no responsibility about defaming a congresswoman in reporting as a fact that she was filmed with a lesbian lover? This is incredible to me.

I get my facts wrong, huh? ROTFLMAO. It would be nice if any of this discussion had one single verifiable fact. I see none, except one nonprivileged fired contract linguist making accusations she has provided no fact to support.

I hope she does provide names of the people she translated so that might reveal facts that might back up her accusations, to keep some of y'all from ending up as laughingstocks.

Canning: "All we know is that these are FBI intercepts that potentially captured the words of the very individuals (members of Congress & high-level US government officials) whom Edmonds' testimony implicates in corruption, bribery, espionage and treason."

... Not unless all those members of Congress spoke clandestinely in fluent Turkish for Edmonds to translate.
__________________________

Did it ever occur to you, cheeky, that the intercepts entail more than one conversation? Did it ever occur to you that some of those conversations may have been in Turkish while other recorded conversations were in English? Others still, may have been in a third language? Or do you actually believe that Turkish agents operating inside this country are monolingual?

Next, I did not "assume" anything. That is why I said that the intercepts "potentially" captured the words of the various members of Congress, etc.

You, on the other hand, made the assumption that all conversations recorded by the FBI were in Turkish.

By repeating that Ms. Edmonds words were "defamatory" you are making the claim that you "know" that what she said is not true. Yet, you have not offered a scintilla of evidence to "prove" that Ms. Edmonds lied.

Neither Brad Friedman, nor anyone else at this blog, claimed they had knowledge of the guilt or innocence of any of those identified by Edmonds. They merely "reported" on Edmonds' sworn testimony.

If you wish to contest, for example, a claim made by Sibel Edmonds that Turkish lobby monies influenced a vote in Congress on, say, the Armenian genocide, it is you who has the burden of proving by way of a link to the Congressional record that would show that the member of Congress voted against rather than for the Turkish lobby.

You, of course, have done no such thing because you are not interested in truth or facts. But then, as your passive/aggressive posts make all too clear, you really are not interested in the truth. Your purpose is to smear, to slander, to antagonize, to do anything to sidetrack us from the issue at hand.

And you continue to do so in a cowardly fashion; posting anonymously as "cheeky."

The following exchange typifies our "cheeky's" utter disregard for truth.

john olin said on 9/27/2009 @ 8:54 am PT...

Alright I'm bored and was reading through comment 83. I'm just wondering where the facts were checked that she attended no mothers funeral. I missed that part of the discussion. Are you speaking hypothetically?

Cheeky responded:

Yeah, sorry Olin, but I'm not that into you. I couldn't care less about your analysis of me.

Cheeky never provided a direct answer to Mr. Olin's direct question because this was but one more example of cheeky's rather imaginative scenarios that are not fact-based.

As I asked Brad, is there evidence to support the assumptions that she was employed as or otherwise qualified to analyze FBI data? Any fact to back up the notion the FBI had her listening to English-English conversations for grins and giggles?

It doesn't make sense, people! She translated Turkish conversations. I see no reason to think she heard anything damaging from any American's voice, even if we have reason to think she was in a position to verify the authenticity of the voices she was told she was transcribing.

It would be nice if any of this discussion had one single verifiable fact

So far, Cheeky, you have not offered a single, verifiable fact to prove your claim that you are a professional journalist. Hiding behind anonymity, you have repeatedly made baseless assumptions and presented arguments that are so carelessly uninformed, that one can't help but suspect that even your claim to be a journalist is a bald-faced lie.

Actually, Cheeky, after reading your responses (thoroughly enough to be rightly confused by your swiss-cheese logic), I have no doubt that you're a "professional journalist." Your wacky assertions, back-door obfuscations, and blatantly lazy sourcing is all the proof I need.

Why didn't you bother reading up on the facts of this case before posting here, huh? Even easier to do, little birdie, why didn't you bother researching the hand-fed info given to you by the astute posters up thread? In fact, hard to believe but even more easy and left undone by you: you didn't even bother reading some of Brad's responses to you in full before posting knee-jerk, wrong, wrong, wrong-i-tudes (your words: "assumptions) without first checking the facts. (Which, btw, I was able to do within two minutes - maybe three, since I'm clearly not as smart as yoo.)

Attempts to side swipe (all our) credibility with ad-hoc associations and left-field attacks like you have done in this thread several times (whether they be from outer space like aliens, or aliens like Orly Taitz ) are thinly veiled, empty, diversionary tactics --- universally recognized as completely desperate to the critical thinker. Not to mention you then incorrectly attributed your own accusation of that baseless comparison to the wrong poster, you silly. What kind of "old school journalistic research" does it take to use the scroll button on the mouse at your wrist and double check? I guess you missed that day in the "old school". ( Do you have a note from your doctor?) Or maybe the "old school" of journalism needs to be de-funded and completely privatized. Oh wait - we did that.
And you're the result.

No, Cheeky.
In a high school debate competition, you'd get foul after foul for your efforts here. The fact that you don't know that, even when its pointed out to you over and over again in better posts than this one, proves beyond a shadow of a doubt, that you are indeed a "professional journalist."

"Now that we've already established what you are, sir, let us haggle about the price." Now, how much would you charge us, the citizens, to cover this story on NBC, Cheeky Chuck Todd?

she listened to wiretaps in the Turkish language division, as part of the Turkish investigation. This means that some conversations were in Turkish, in other languages (including English), and sometimes mixed with all of the above.

Are you really incapable of understanding that these wiretaps could have captured conversations in more than one language; that someone who listened to them would have to, at a minimum, be capable of listening to the conversations in at least two languages (English/Turkish) (Edmonds was also hired as a Farsi interpreter)?

Are you really incapable of understanding that the Turkish section of the FBI during the course of a six year investigation could have captured literally thousands of conversations in multiple languages? Is it really beyond your level of comprehension that these tapes could potentially contain more than one conversation in more than one language --- that an interpreter, in the course of her employment, would be exposed to conversations taking place in more than one language?

Or is it that you conveniently ignore any and all possibilities that get in the way of your desire to defame Sibel Edmonds irrespective of facts or logic?

Sure, the FBI may have wiretaps in English, but none of you have answered why anyone in the FBI would need a TRANSLATOR to tell them what those said.

Takers? Please? Any rational person in here?

Canning, you seem sold on Brad's illogical claim that someone like Schakowsky could have been listening to someone speaking Turkish to her and yet was replying to that person, implicating herself, in English.

Canning, you seem sold on Brad's illogical claim that someone like Schakowsky could have been listening to someone speaking Turkish to her and yet was replying to that person, implicating herself, in English.

Show me where Brad said that "Schakowsky...[was] listening to someone speaking Turkish?"

You can't because Brad never said anything of the sort.

Are you really incapable of considering that:

(a) An English-speaking member of Congress can have a conversation with a Turkish agent, which conversation is entirely in English; that

(b) That same Turkish agent can have a second conversation with one of her handlers which is entirely in Turkish, and

(c) Both conversations are capable of being recorded and stored on the same tape or CD?

Why do you think the FBI would store the English wiretaps on the same tape with the tapes that needed translation? ... And to store the English language wiretaps --- just for storage sake --- there for months and even years awaiting arrival of someone who can translate the other languages?

What need would the FBI have to merge these different wiretaps into one tape and then pay a translator to listen to the English conversations?

Do you think FBI management who ordered this level of wiretap typically offers such information to a brand-new, part-time contract translator?

"Why anyone in the FBI would need a TRANSLATOR to tell them what those said."

Cheeky, Wow n' Holy, Milk-less Cow in Hell, you're really out of it. There are about a million sources - reliable, vetted ones I might add - that would give you much needed background on why the FBI was desperate for translators in the days and months after the attacks. Especially valuable were translators who understood and spoke several languages in the targeted regions of interest.

As astounding as I find it that you clearly don't recall, or never read anywhere, about how the Bush Administration had slashed the budget for counter-terrorism within the intelligence communities in the weeks prior to 9/11; layoffs were dismantling FBI/ CIA CT departments at the time of the attacks.

Do you really not know that? It's not conjecture. Do I have to now go digging through cyber-space to find and cite the gazillions of sources for you on this most basic, well-documented fact, Cheeky Chucky? Cuz I'm sure there's a ball game on that's a better use of my time considering you're soooosoooosoooo off.
About sooosoooosooo much.

...I'll think about it. To be honest I'm so tired of educating my centralized, corporate press. They don't know anything anymore because they only read themselves.

And you didn't answer my question, Chuck. What is your price for airing and or reporting the Sibel Edmonds story, even to REFUTE it, on our publically owned national airwaves?

Why do you think the FBI would store the English wiretaps on the same tape with the tapes that needed translation?

Again, pathetic!

Did it ever occur to you that the conversations pertaining to one investigation --- say a scheme to blackmail a Congresswoman regarding a sexual liaison with a female Turkish agent --- would be kept on the same contiguous tape (or CD) as the conversations were being sequentially recorded irrespective of the language captured by the intercepts? Did it ever occur to you that the principle concern of investigating agents is to first capture and record the conversations irrespective of the languages recorded; that the issue of translation arises after the conversations are captured?

Maybe the FBI --- which was the investigative arm of the DOJ at that time and still is, for the most part, since it moved under the new Homeland Security --- had reason to advise the courts that Edmonds had no business going around pretending to have the expertise of an analyst.

Canning, I do see what you're saying that maybe a Turk she was translating could have hung up and then had a conversation with a member of Congress, and that might be on the same tape by happenstance. You're guessing, but OK, let's say the FBI management is so inept it didn't separate the translation out so ended up paying Edmonds to listen to English conversations, too. I doubt this, and I see no evidence that's what happened, but let's say she comes back and says that's the case.

Then, if she listened to these wiretaps in this multilingual pattern, she has been secretive and manipulative herself in not identifying the Turk who was being tapped.

Why would she protect the name of the "criminal" Turk and not the names of the "criminal" Americans?

Anyone? If all your assumptions and Brad's reporting are true, why hasn't Edmonds named the Turk or Turks or other culprits on these tapes?

Why does she seem to be protecting the person or people who allegedly set up this lesbian tryst? Why is she naming Schakowsky and not the alleged lover?

Why is she not revealing who she was transcribing, beyond the English-speaking alleged participants, assuming what you say is true?

[ed note: Revealing that information could blow investigations, or tip people under suspicion, mess up international relations, whatever it is FBI personnel are sworn not to divulge. She's mentioned this obligation a few thousand times. --99]

Anyone? Sibel says she came forward only wants to give Americans all the information. In the land of free speech we should all know what our government is up to, she says.

So, where are the rest of the names? Why does she name only those she alleges are American bad guys?

Sibel beat her head against this gag wall for all these years and finally gets to reveal all these new wild things she remembers translating eight years ago, and she has conveniently forgotten the names of every non-American.

[ed note: No, really, cheeky, you're into the zone now where it's pure thoughtless antagonism for antagonism's sake. I know others have been antagonizing you here. You're even now. Give it a rest. --99]

If it didn't compromise an investigation to name Americans she claims were involved in wrongdoing more than eight years ago, then it compromises nothing to name all the people in the alleged conspiracy.

... Unless, of course, she is a Turkish operative who doesn't want to compromise the Turks grander schemes. She already screwed the pooch on the Americans, wouldn't you say?

Yvonne, if you want a thorough investigations, you must also want Edmonds to reveal all the names of all the players.

If she would name all the people she was translating, maybe then real journalists could trace her nonprivileged assertions back to a privileged source and really get somewhere with this, as a matter of fact and not wild speculations.

Your continued efforts to defame Sibel and *fabricate* your own scenarios that you have NO idea are what is reality in the FBI and ignore any other scenarios that completely counter your "theories" that you have worked up to try and convict Sibel of libel in your own libelous head. You must figure that you are good at laying out how other people are lying, slandering, and libeling others when that is likely what people have been charging you with in the past the way your MO seems to be showing here.

Consider the following scenario and tell us why this "wouldn't work" under YOUR conspiracy theories about how the FBI works. Suppose that the place where the Turkish spies were gathering had video surveillance and the lesbian contact and other Turkish agents were videotaped watching their OWN videotape on a TV set of the affair with the congresswoman, where she is speaking in English, identifiable, etc. Obviously the Turks watching this would likely be speaking in Turkish simultaneously to what they are watching shows people speaking in English. Now, you who feels that there is some STUPID need to separate this by language would seem to have a challenge on how to "separate" this surveillance so that someone like Sibel would ONLY translate Turkish language content and NOT see the blackmail tape they might have been playing on the video clip she's watching.

Now, that's not the ONLY scenario that makes this sort of thing possible, but it sure as hell shoots down your argument that there should only be Turkish language material she's "exposed" to. And I might add, that this sort of scenario might be a very likely scenario that happened.

At this point, revealing names to "journalists" is just not that important. What is important, is that a formal, thorough investigation be conducted by the Department of Justice (or whomever) into the allegations Edmonds has made on-the-record thus far--and that will quite likely open up a bigger can of worms, and then the unnamed individuals you're so concerned about will likely be revealed.

Also, has it not occurred to you that perhaps as a result of the gag order under the State Secrets Privilege (that she was slapped with by the bush admin several years ago prohibiting her from speaking publicly about this) may preclude her from revealing certain things at this point in time?

I agree with your point that all of this is just speculation and "scenario," Cascadiance, including the claims Edmonds is making.

The only privileged source in any of Edmonds' claims to have spoken that I know of --- Schakowsky --- has said through her spokesman that Edmond's scenario of the lesbian tryst is "fantasy," I think is how he put it.

Edmonds wasn't there to know if this is a fact. Schakowsky definitely would have been there if this were a fact. Until Edmonds produces the other partner in this alleged tryst, I have to go with Schakowky's "scenario."

And Schakowsky's spokesman gave details that unquestionably did disproved Edmonds' first claim, for example that her mother died in 1987, not 2001. She came back to say it was another mother in her family, but her husband's mother didn't die until 2007, and now people here who so desperately want to believe Edmonds for the sake of believing Edmonds say Schakowsky must have been using "mother" to refer to the funeral of any woman who was the mother of anyone.

One rare fact in all this is that Edmonds admitted she initially mistook plain old English as "Schakowsky's mother," then "the mother," then perhaps any "mother."

Maybe she's better at understanding Turkish and Farsi than she is understanding English, but if we are to go with what some of you (and it seems also Brad) are saying is the basis of her allegations, it appears to be solely the English audio she heard and not the Turkish or Farsi. She wasn't paid to "translate" the English audio, and she surely wasn't paid to analyze what she transcribed.

Yvonne, journalists hear "on the record" accusations from multiple people every single day. Unless they can back up their claim with something tangible or documentary, no one wastes their time with publicity-seekers.

The ball is in Edmonds' court to produce a privileged source who will back up the gossip, in their own "on the record" identity and not just her telling us that many people at the FBI support her every word. She's 0-1 at this point, down on the Schakowsky count.

She has made some intriguing claims. I'd like to see her be able to prove herself to have verifiable information, or for Brad or someone else willing to investigate for free to be able to do it. But what she's not saying at this stage is telling me she may not be someone to take seriously.

What you are in effect asking is similar to a judge asking a prosecutor to completely prove that a suspect is guilty before he would indict them and put them on trial. And in that case, you don't necessarily have as many barriers of secrecy of evidence that even if known can't be produced to the judge without court orders or subpoenas. That's not the way our justice system works. If there's enough evidence to provide reasonable believability (forgive me that I'm not a lawyer and don't get all of the detailed legal speak proper here), then a court case is scheduled, and THEN it is up to the prosecutor and the defense to produce more evidence and witness testimony to prove someone's guilty or not. To require complete proof up front when evidence might not be attainable without court processes to solicit them, that is a system that produces no justice at all, as criminal acts would rarely be prosecuted.

That is what in effect Sibel has faced. A do nothing judicial system that despite her efforts to provide a lot of sufficient evidence to at least do an investigation, none has been done, and it is likely due to many in the government processes themselves being compromised and having conflicts of interest with ruling on whether an investigation, etc. should move forward or not.

You can certainly say that there's not enough proof to go out and hang others with, and certainly even Sibel doesn't claim to say that Ms. Schakowsky is guilty with the evidence she knows of, but given what she's put forth, a thorough investigation is necessary in most people's minds that read what she's alleging and who get to know what is to know about this case.

For her to point fingers at so much wrongdoing, and so many places for such incidents to be proven or disproven, is a recipe to resolve this quickly, IF there is a resolve to pursue this with the interests of protecting the interests of our country. The fact that it isn't being pursued, when it has gone on for so long, and there are so many ways that it would seem obvious to take her challenges on and either disprove them, or find truth in them to launch further investigations makes it appear to many that there is something being covered up. Orly Taitz isn't saying precisely where she KNOWS of some documentation that shows Obama wasn't born in Hawaii. Hers is strictly speculative and trying to find a "scenario" that *might* have happened then, whereas Sibel is pointing to specific documents that could be used to prove or disprove her case.

You and Ms. Schakowsky's office are trying to make a big deal of small details that don't necessarily make a difference in the larger substance of what she's asking us to look at. What material difference is it to what Sibel is trying to accomplish whether it was true that Ms. Schakowsky's mother died 13 years earlier or died recently and was in fact the mother referred to in the material she was looking at. If the material was mysteriously identified or misidentified to her in what she was exposed to, that doesn't make her overall case less important to look at. It's like her saying there were people smoking some Camels, because someone in the video asked for a Camel cigarette, but there were Marlboro's were on the table instead but not visible enough to distinguish them on the videotape. Would she be misrepresenting what was going on if she said that the person watched was asking for a Camel, but the person said that they only smoked Marlboro's in that sequence (because that was what was there)? She might have not had all of the facts, but she could be honestly representing her case, as could the person that was the subject of the investigation. The same with Sibel and Ms. Schakowsky. To jump to conclusions that YOU KNOW Sibel is trying to misrepresent the truth and pull a fast one on us, without further investigation is what most would see as efforts to STOP the investigation, because of an unstated concern about what that investigation might reveal.

We should no more make assumptions that we KNOW what wrongdoing that Ms. Schakowsky and others implicated were engaged in (if they were involved in wrongdoing), than we should make assumptions that Sibel is trying to perpetuate some sort of fantasy world on us, when there's too much corroborating evidence and people that support her story. Focus all of these questions that you are asking as to reasons why we NEED to do an investigation, since there's no way we can know if that happened or something else happened, and the longer America is left guessing about these important events, the more we will mistrust our government.

Wow, I'd say Bradblog was truly gifted to see, today, the caliber of debate that a self proclaimed "proffessional journalist" is able to engage in.

I'm sure Armstrong would be impressed, as would any number of "message force multipliers" that worked so earnestly to give us the straight scoop on the Iraq clusterfuck.

Kudos to Ernest and Brad for maintaining their cool when confronted with such despicably disingenuous and insincere argument. Obsfucation is his game, and the Sibel Edmonds issue is not the only issue he debates in such a despicable manner.

Wow, I've missed a lot of conversation today while I was working in my garden. I' ve only just started reading it so forgive me if I saying anything redundant at this point. Cheeky, I'm sorry you aren't that into me. I thought we had something special. Lora, the Mrs. Schakowsky comment was in jest. I stepped over the line in the insinuation and I apologize. And as to Ms. Schakowsky's husbands' job learn to google http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jan_Schakowsky. There you will find information on her husband.

Somewhere Edmonds published a list of the names of various organizations (the Grey Wolves and AIPAC were two of them I believe) that she suggested people look into, I'm trying to find the list right now. I think that she was trying to say that people should look into those groups to find the persons she was involved in investigating. I'll post a link to it if I can find it.

I'm sorry if this has already been said-of course a bilingual conversation would not likely be going on Cheeky. This isn't Star Wars. However, if Edmonds also transcribed intercepted messages she may have been exposed to sets of tapes which included both conversations in English as well as in Turkish. That you can research. Please do so with diligent honesty. As to the fact as to whether or not she was employed by the US government I believe they fired her. That, too, you can research. I believe Freedom of Information Acts have been filed. Google search the name of the file that she says verifies her claims. That's on Wikipedia, if you need the name. As to why a new Turkish translator would be listening to said tapes that's how life works. You get hired and they put you to work doing what you're believed responsible enough to do. Yeah sure you'll ask why'd they find a new translator responsible enough to do such work. Well that's what you're supposed to do before you hire someone. OK, that's it for now I think. Goodnight, Cheeky.

The department of justice is bound by law to investigate allegation of bribery and blackmail:
"919. In the investigation of a charge for the purpose of either presentment or indictment, the grand jury can receive no other evidence than such as is given by witnesses produced and sworn before them, or furnished by legal documentary evidence, or the deposition of a witness in the cases mentioned in the third subdivision of section 080. The grand jury can receive none but legal evidence, and the best evidence in degree, to the exclusion of hearsay or secondary evidence."

So the question is - do we still have a constitutional republic - or is the constitution now considered just a set of opinions?

Oh, sorry, Agent 99. Mea culpa, sincerely. I didn't mean to post in the other thread, which I called up accidentally in a google and then couldn't delete. Please, would you delete the misplaced one? I'll repost here, with my corrections. Thanks.

Well, just to tell all you faithful believers, I checked the Armenian genocide legislation since the year 2000, the year Edmonds alleges ATC had an alleged lesbian spy allegedly exploit Schakowsky's alleged grief with alleged intent to blackmail her into changing her vote on the House resolution. (Never mind the trivial little snafu that I could find no obit with any Schakowsky listed as anyone's surviving family, mother, daughter or anyone else, that year.)

The funny little inconsistency in Edmonds' tale of intrigue, though, is that Schakowsky has consistently supported the legistlation. She voted for it, not against it, in 2007 when it came to a committee vote, just as she had in 1999, and she co-sponsored it in 2005 and other years the GOP leadership didn't post it for a vote. Funny how Schakowsky doesn't appear intimidated by this alleged lesbian tryst, isn't it?

Funnier yet, Wayne Madsen, the famous ex-spy who is always the first to publish these spy theories, published that a "journalist" pal of his in 2006 --- hmm, funny coincidence, again, that 2006 was the year the Democrats swept overwhelming control of the House --- allegedly asked an allegedly friendly House member to allegedly speak to Schakowsky about "her problem," and although, WM wrote, the alleged "journalist" and the alleged congressman never mentioned names (wink) or the alleged exact "problem" (wink wink), everyone understood what was allegedly being discussed and Schakowsky was allegedly upset. And I can really see a congressman being such a close confidante to a controversial tattletale ex-spy-turned-"journalist" who perennially claims "they" in the intel community are out to kill him.

So, therefore, WM says, it was surely confirmed in 2006 that Schakowsky was allegedly aware she was allegedly caught in this alleged lesbian tryst that the ATC allegedly arranged and allegedly videotaped, secretly, in a townhouse Sibel says Schakowsky owned, even though she didn't. But don't let fake details impede your faith in Edmonds' overall claims that she knows, somehow, that these things she says she heard on audio tapes are all God-given true facts.

WM wrote that he knows the name of the alleged ATC lesbian hooker spy --- well, her first name, and that's good enough proof positive for WM --- but he and his fellow "journalists," and perhaps Edmonds, are protecting the poor little dear's identity because the innocent darling lesbian hooker may not have known the ATC was using her as a spy. Boo hoo, I feel so bad for this phantom lesbian hooker spy, don't all of you?

But there's that niggling litte detail. If Schakowsky knew the ATC had this alleged video of the alleged lesbian tryst to allegedly blackmail her by 2006, if not before, why did she still defy what Edmonds alleges were the ATC's desire for her to vote against the Armenian genocide resolution?

But, wait a minute! Maybe the ATC is blackmailing Schakowsky. After all, isn't that pretty little Turk Sibel Edmonds revealing the alleged tryst now, right on schedule to punish Schakowsky for defying the ATC?

I'm just alleging, mind you, because it's fair to do so as fact according to folks here as long as no one can disprove my theory. And you can't question my claim, or else you would be defaming me, and that would be illegal, right Ernie?

The most interesting thing I noted, though, is something even more threatening to the ATC than the Armenian genocide vote.

Pelosi put Schakowsky on the House Select Committee on Intelligence in January 2007 and more recently gave Schakowsky the chairmanship. Schakowsky now does, indeed, --- no allegedlies --- have a powerful position in overseeing these spy, counterspy, countercounterspy-type activities, doesn't she?

Schakowsky can compel investigation of the ATC, or of Edmonds, or of almost anything she wants to now.

Well, isn't that special, that all of a sudden, eight years after being fired from her 24 weeks as a part-time Turkish/Farsi translater, pretty little fluttering-eyelashes Sibel Edmonds comes up with this new shocking claim that she overheard eight years ago, in her "trusted FBI source" position as a soon-to-be-fired contract linguist, that there allegedly was an alleged lesbian tryst video. Funny how that never was anything Edmonds alluded to before Schakowsky got that powerful chairmanship.

Edmonds is such a loyal naturalized (?) American she just has to reveal names of all those naughty Americans, but it's only natural that she guard the privacy of all the foreign players in her tale of intrigue, isn't it?

Seeing the attitudes in here, I know this new conspiracy theory is going to go over like a lead balloon, but anyone who takes an objective look at the facts can see my allegations make a lot more sense than do Sibel Edmonds'.

Cheeky, I'm a faithful believer in you. Your story sounds crazy. I hope all of your claims are not true. If everything you've told me is true, then something is horribly wrong. I mean seriously that's a crazy story you just told. I think you're awesome man. Be the perpetual skeptic. Just remember, you've got trust your senses some, or you'll walk into a tree.

I finally found the list I was looking for and I was wrong. Sibel Edmonds did not make the list. So I don't know if its relevant at all. But I'll repost it anyway so Cheeky can research it for me and then get back to me and tell me what's going on.
Gray Wolves
Shanghai Cooperation Organization
RAND Corporation
PNAC
East Turkmenistan
Iran
Syria
Foreign Policy
King Faisal
ISI
The link to search for this list (at least to see where I found it)is here-http://letsibeledmondssp...s-names-in-pictures.html
I'm still waiting on you to get back to me about my previous research requests, Cheeky. I'm depending on you and your professional journalistic skills.
Also take this test-http://justacitizen.com/...%20Edmonds%20CaseMC.html
I haven't taken it yet myself because I really haven't done enough research to attempt it. But once again I think they're may be hints as to who she was involved in investigating in there somewhere if we try reading between the lines. C'mon Cheeky. Let's play conspiracy theory together.

"John M. Cole, a former FBI Counterintelligence and Counterespionage Manager, has publicly confirmed the FBI’s decade long investigation of the former State Department Official Marc Grossman. Cole worked for 18 years in the FBI’s Counterintelligence Division. According to Cole, as in over one hundred cases involving Israeli espionage activities directed against the US government, the Grossman case was covered up and buried despite mountains of evidence that was collected.

Here is the public response from John Cole after the publication of The American Conservative magazine’s cover story:

“I read the recent cover story by The American Conservative magazine. I applaud their courage in publishing this significant interview. I am fully aware of the FBI’s decade-long investigation of the High-level State Department Official named in this article, Marc Grossman, which ultimately was buried and covered up. It is long past time to investigate this case and bring about accountability…”
In November 2006, in an by Jeff Stein published by “Congressional Quarterly” on the cover-up of espionage cases involving Israel, Cole was quoted extensively:

“John M. Cole, an FBI spy catcher who retired in 2004, says that from 1993 to 1995 alone, he had “125 open cases” of Israeli espionage, representing nearly half of all the investigations carried on in his Global Unit, part of the now-defunct National Security division.” Inside the FBI itself, Cole said, tracking suspected Israeli spies was hush-hush.In a sharp break with FBI procedures, he was prohibited from notifying field offices when an investigation crept into their jurisdictions. “No one was supposed to know we were investigating the Israelis,” Cole said.”
Stein’s article also quoted several other FBI officials confirming Cole’s disclosure:

“The 125 figure “makes sense,” another former top FBI counterintelligence official said, speaking only on condition that he not be identified because of the issue’s sensitivity. This official called the Israeli embassy’s denials “horse [manure].” In fact, he said, U.S. officials repeatedly warned the Israelis to back off. But the finger-wagging only seemed to energize them. “We would call them in, call them on the carpet, and next week there would be 10 more cases,” he said. The Justice Department never seemed much interested in prosecuting them, he and other counterintelligence veterans said. Agents would get pissed off,” said the former top official. “We knew they were going to walk, that they were going to get a pass. . . . It was frustrating.”

Cheeky, I am sure that the more people like you claim to protest Sibel's disclosures, or ridicule them as gossip, the more Special Agents will come to the aid of their country. They took that oath, as I did. You seem to be carrying water for someone else.

Excellent work, Cheeky! As a "professional journalist", I'm sure you'll be reporting your alarming findings soon, no doubt? Does the newspaper/TV/Magazine/Bathroom wall you work at require you to put your name on your work? That could be a problem for ya, I guess.

That said, we didn't get off the road until ate last night, so just catching up with this thread in full today. But will be more than happy to pick up on some points, among your many embarrassing and shameful and obnoxious --- and at times even defamatory --- comments posted while I was on the road all day yesterday, very soon...

You should have quit while you imagined you were ahead. Whatever credibility you might have had has now been completely tossed under the bus by your continued re-placement of the goal posts and variously changing explanations in this thread. I don't think it's necessary for me to stitch together how you've done that above, as most folks commenting --- since I was on the road for the rest of the day/night yesterday --- have largely pointed much of it out already. It's clear you either haven't a clue of what Edmonds job as a linguist was at the bureau, which you have no excuses for at this point, since you were willing to slime her despite your lack of knowledge (your comments above reveal you didn't even bother to read her recent sworn deposition), or you know what her job entailed, but you are willing to slime her based on wholly inaccurate (and, actually, absurd) points nonetheless.

And with that...Sorry, amigo. But we have a very few rules for commenting here at The BRAD BLOG, and one of them concerns the posting of "knowing disinformation". You have now, officially, crossed that line in several of your comments above, as far as I'm concerned.

Had you not otherwise revealed yourself to be a fairly smart fellow previously, it might have been chalked up to out-and-out ignorance, but that excuse has just about run its course for you over your last several comments here. So please consider this your friendly warning. We do not allow posts containing knowing disinfo on this site. Keep it up, and you'll not be posting here much longer, even though I have a feeling you'll disappear as quickly as you showed up very soon anyway.

With that then, and in hopes of getting back to legitimate substance, Cheeks, I ask you politely again (as another poster did as well) to respond to the direct question concerning your statement at comment #83, which went as follows:

What will Edmonds change next about what she thinks she heard on those tapes, now that facts have been checked and she attended no mother's funeral that year?

In comment #87, John Olin asked you, in regard to that statement:

I'm just wondering where the facts were checked that she attended no mothers funeral. I missed that part of the discussion. Are you speaking hypothetically?

And in comment #109 (before I'd seen John Olin's questioning of same), I asked you in regard to that same statement:

Then, as now, a specific answer would be very much appreciated, since you failed to give one previously, even though you were asked about it twice, and it would obviously be very helpful information for all of us. As I know how much you are interested in "professional journalism" and getting to the bottom of important issues like these, your answer can be fairly helpful to those of who actually *are* interested in investigating this matter, and not just kicking dust into the umpires eyes. So, again, thanks in advance for your help here.

Very interesting post over at 123realchange. It sounds like people want to take pot shots at Sibel's credibility. Well, a sure enough FBI John M. Cole, a former FBI Counterintelligence and Counterespionage Manager, has publicly confirmed FBI’s decade long investigation of the former State Department Official. -Marc Grossman. He takes Sibel seriously. I do too.

No problem! I thought your Lora = Schakowski comment might be in jest --- hard to tell in a comment sometimes. No worries, you weren't over the line IMO.

Joe Blow,

Thanks for the info on Grossman. Again, IMO this is where we ought to be focused. Whether the Schakowski allegation is true or false, without the videotape or equally hard evidence, you will never get an admission, you will never be able to prove anything, and due to the discrepancies in Sibel's version vs. Schakowski's version, unless the Congresswoman is blowing nothing but hot air out of her derriere, Sibel can only come out of this with her credibility lessened. Time to move on, methinks.

Just being realistic here. Let's assume, for argument's sake, that the allegations against Schakowski are unfounded.

How could she not be anything but furious?

Do you really think she'd say, oh well, I've just been accused of having a lesbian affair with a Turkish spy, but that's ok, let me help you uncover the truth, even though I will get a horrible amount of negative publicity and the Republican attack machine will do their best to make me out to be a homosexual, husband-cheating traitor?

To protect her political career, she must vehemently denounce the allegations as lies, point out the factual errors, and divorce herself as completely and rapidly as possible from Sibel and anything she might be involved with. Which she did.

Any other response would probably be political suicide.

And if the allegations are true, that is still the response you would get.

Sorry, you lost me there on the support group comment. I didn't catch your meaning.

Cheeky, where have you gone? My invitation to play conspiracy theory is still open. But Lora might not like my what-if. Its a good one though. But I'm waiting for you to come back, so I can share it, with you.

Cheeky, I'm still a true believer. Currently I assume you are pursuing the links I posted above and checking the citations, doing your best to research the story. To be completely honest, you seem to know more about it than I do. I'm a newbie to this scene.
Anyway, I've got to apologize for misinterpreting something you said above. You were asking if anyone could prove Edmonds was employed as an intelligence analyst, not if she had been employed by the FBI at all. So I think you are right she was not employed as an analyst. She was listening to conversations. Conversations can be fairly simple to analyze if you hear them, provided you understand the context they are spoken in. That could have happened.
I don't know. Neither, I believe, do you.
Furthermore, I was re-reading this whole discussion and I finally noticed that you had given the dates of both her mother's and her mother-in-law's death. Now you just need to cite where you found that information for us.
However, since you haven't come back to play conspiracy theory with me, I'll have to play it by myself. What if-the mother in question who died was not Schwakosky's mother but the Turkish agent's mother. It wouldn't have to have been the woman's actual mother. The funeral could have been faked. Then, they could have put Schwakosky in a situation where she could have felt like she was comforting another soul in need of support. After the funeral, they go back to the agent's townhouse, which has been prewired to record the encounter.
That's just absolute speculation BS. I made it up. But it seems like a possibility. Lora, let me stem off your rebuttal by saying, yes, that is absolute speculation BS. I just made it up.
What I want to do is enter into a game of sorts between me and cheeky, where he plays the eternal pessimistic skeptic, and I am the eternal optistic best of all worlder. In an honest debate, we can rule out what is impossible to discover what we agree is possible. This can help us to arrive at the truth.

According to Shakowski's staff, the American Conservative magazine is part of the vast right wing conspiracy.

I doubt they have ever read that magazine. It is a great magazine for the thinking conservative. It has criticized Bush and his neocon masters far more than it has criticized the Left. The very same article that gives Edmonds story, mentions Feith, Perle, Wolfowitz, and Hastert as part of the same spy ring.

I guess Shakowski's philosophy is that playing offense is better than playing defense. And that if you are going to throw mud (and lies) throw a lot of it. Some may stick.